Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT NATHAN MARK WEBER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D22-2178 July 19, 2023 Appeal from the County Court for Pinellas County; Dorothy Vaccaro, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Dempsey, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. SILBERMAN, Judge. Nathan Mark Weber appeals his conviction and sentence for leaving the scene of a crash with property damage in violation of section 316.061(1), Florida Statutes (2022), and the denial of his motion to correct sentencing error. We affirm Weber's conviction without comment. However, because the trial court failed to enter a judgment and sentence that complies with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986 and fails to identify the statutory basis of court costs imposed, we reverse and remand solely for entry of a corrected judgment and sentence. In its oral ruling following a bench trial, the trial court found Weber guilty, withheld adjudication, and imposed "$500 in court fines." In a written "Order for Payment of Fines, Fees and Costs" filed on June 9, 2022 (the Payment Order), the court did not reference "fines" but imposed costs as follows: a lump sum of $350 in unspecified "court costs," $50 for costs of prosecution, a $50 indigency fee, and $50 in attorneys' fees. Weber filed a notice of appeal, and later, on October 10, 2022, he filed a motion to correct sentencing error. In the motion, he argued that the trial court failed to enter a written sentence documenting the withhold of adjudication and that the court, in the Payment Order, improperly imposed a lump sum of $350 in court costs and failed to cite the statutory authority for such costs. He did not challenge the other amounts that were imposed. More than sixty days after Weber filed his motion, the trial court entered two orders. In one, bearing a filing date of December 16, 2022, the court vacated the Payment Order. In the second order, bearing a filing date of January 15, 2023, the court resentenced Weber to a withhold of adjudication and a "$500 fine." In this appeal, Weber does not challenge his conviction but argues that the trial court failed to rule on his motion prior to losing jurisdiction and that, as a result, his motion is deemed denied pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)(B). Under that rule, when a defendant files a motion to correct a sentencing error while an appeal is pending, "if the trial court does not file an order ruling on the motion within 60 days, the motion shall be deemed denied." (Emphasis added.) 2 The record reflects that the trial court filed its two orders vacating the Payment Order and resentencing Weber more than sixty days after Weber had filed his motion. We recognize that the court had signed the orders on an earlier date, but the date of filing is the controlling date under rule 3.800(b)(2)(B). Thus, the orders addressing Weber's motion are nullities. See Petterson v. State, 323 So. 3d 348, 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (recognizing that orders filed after the statutorily imposed sixty- day limit are nullities (first citing Pearce v. State, 968 So. 2d 92, 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); then citing Grable v. State, 37 So. 3d 989, 990 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); and then citing Jackson v. State, 793 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001))). As a result, our review pertains to errors contained in the original Payment Order and the lack of the necessary documentation regarding Weber's judgment and sentence. The Payment Order improperly imposed $350 in court costs as a lump sum without citation to any statutory authority for its imposition. "The statutory authority for all costs imposed, whether they are mandatory or discretionary, must be cited in the written order." Vick v. State, 37 So. 3d 951, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Kirby v. State, 695 So. 2d 889, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). Although the imposition of costs without identified statutory bases will be stricken and remanded for further proceedings, we recognize that "the trial court may reimpose th[o]se costs if it provides statutory authority for their assessment." Id. The Payment Order also fails to comport with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986. Trial courts are required to use a judgment and sentence that conforms to the forms provided in rule 3.986(a). Barnett v. State, 329 So. 3d 809, 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). The form for a judgment should include an indication of whether the defendant (1) was tried and found guilty by a jury or court, (2) entered a plea of guilty, or (3) entered a plea of no 3 contest. It also should include details regarding the counts, crimes, statute numbers, and degree of the crimes. Finally, it should include an indication of whether the defendant is adjudicated guilty or whether adjudication of guilt is being withheld. And it should be signed by the judge. The form for sentencing should include, at a minimum, the term of the sentence . . . . While the rule allows for variations from the judgment and sentencing forms provided, it only does so if the judgments and sentences "are otherwise sufficient." Otherwise, they will be void. Id. (citations omitted). The order on appeal is insufficient as it does not include that Weber was found guilty by the court, details regarding the count, crime, statute number, and degree of the crime, and that adjudication was withheld. In summary, we affirm Weber's conviction, strike the $350 in unidentified court costs, reverse the Payment Order, and remand so that the trial court may enter a judgment and sentence in accordance with rule 3.986 and in accordance with its oral pronouncement that adjudication would be withheld. The court may reimpose court costs on remand if it provides statutory authority for their assessment in its order.1 See Vick, 37 So. 3d at 952. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. CASANUEVA and LaROSE, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 1 Although a nullity, we note that the trial court's order filed on January 15, 2023, stated that the court "read a breakdown of the fine and costs in to [sic] the record." This is insufficient as "the statutory authority for all costs imposed . . . must be cited in the written order." Vick, 37 So. 3d at 952 (quoting Kirby, 695 So. 2d at 890). 4