Background
Tyrone O’Neill Adderley, Jr. appealed his convictions and sentences for trafficking in 200 grams or more of methamphetamine and conspiracy to traffic in methamphetamine. The trial court imposed a $2,100 fine under section 775.083, Florida Statutes, and fines totaling $500,000 under section 893.135(1)(f)1.c.—$250,000 for each of the two counts.
At sentencing, the court orally announced a $105 surcharge under section 938.04, equal to five percent of the $2,100 fine. The written sentencing order instead imposed a $25,105 surcharge, equal to five percent of the combined $502,100 in fines. Adderley challenged the written amount under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), but his motion was deemed denied when the trial court did not rule within sixty days.
The Court’s Holding
The First District affirmed Adderley’s convictions after rejecting his claims of reversible trial error. It also affirmed the $25,105 surcharge, notwithstanding the State’s concession that the written sentence improperly departed from the oral pronouncement.
The court held that section 938.04 requires a five-percent surcharge on “any fine,” including fines imposed under section 893.135(1). Because the surcharge is a statutorily mandated cost, it did not have to be orally pronounced at sentencing. The written $25,105 amount was therefore not a scrivener’s error: it correctly included $25,000 attributable to the $500,000 in statutory fines and $105 attributable to the separate $2,100 fine.
Key Takeaways
- Section 938.04’s five-percent surcharge applies to fines imposed under section 893.135(1).
- A mandatory statutory cost may appear in the written sentence even if the court did not orally pronounce it at sentencing.
- The $25,105 surcharge properly reflected five percent of all $502,100 in fines imposed on Adderley.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Florida courts may include the mandatory section 938.04 surcharge in a written sentence without separately announcing the full amount at the sentencing hearing. It also illustrates that an apparent discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and a written sentencing order is not reversible error when the written amount accurately implements a mandatory statutory cost.