Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT D.L.J., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D19-4526 August 18, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Alissa McKee Ellison, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Blair Allen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael S. Roscoe, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. NORTHCUTT, Judge. D.L.J. appeals his adjudication of delinquency and the imposition of certain costs and fees. We affirm the adjudication without comment but see error in two of the three cost and fee issues. D.L.J. first asserts that the trial court erred by imposing the statutory minimum $100 public defender fee without informing him that he had the right to contest the amount of the fee. See § 938.29(1)(a), (5), Fla. Stat. (2019); see also Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (holding that the trial court must notify a defendant of the right to contest the fee even when the court imposes the statutory minimum and the defendant can gain nothing by challenging it). However, the Florida Supreme Court recently held that "[w]hen imposing the statutory minimum, the trial court need not announce the imposition of the public defender's fee or inform the defendant of a right to contest the fee." State v. J.A.R., 46 Fla. L. Weekly S157, S158 (Fla. June 3, 2021). Therefore, D.L.J. is not entitled to relief on this issue. D.L.J. also contests the imposition of a $100 cost of prosecution, pointing out that the State did not specifically request it at sentencing. See § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2019) ("In all criminal and violation-of-probation or community-control cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including 2 investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies." (emphasis added)). The State maintains that only the listed agencies, not the State Attorney's Office (SAO), must make an express request, but our court has held that the requirement applies to the SAO as well. See Vandawalker v. State, 310 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Davis v. State, 286 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Mercado v. State, 304 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Thus, this cost was imposed in error and must be stricken. Last, D.L.J. complains that his $115 Crimes Compensation Trust Fund (CCTF) fee exceeds the statutory maximum. The State concedes error on this point, and we agree that the fee must be reduced. See § 938.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2019) ("Any person . . . being . . . adjudicated delinquent for[] any felony, misdemeanor, delinquent act, or criminal traffic offense under the laws of this state . . . shall pay as an additional cost in the case, in addition and 3 prior to any other cost required to be imposed by law, the sum of $50." (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency and the imposition of the public defender fee but remand for the prosecution cost to be stricken and for the CCTF fee to be reduced to $50. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. VILLANTI and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 4