final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower
Tribunal No. 16-1566A, Maria de Jesus Santovenia, Judge.
J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa,
Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brian H. Zack, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
FERNANDEZ, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.
juvenile, appeals an adjudication of delinquency for petit
theft of retail merchandise. K.M. challenges the level of
misdemeanor for which she was found delinquent as well as the
juvenile court's imposition of a $65 court cost. We
affirm the adjudication of delinquency for petit theft and
reverse the juvenile court's imposition of the additional
State filed an amended petition for delinquency, charging
K.M. with one count of petit theft against a retailer, a
first-degree misdemeanor under section 812.014(2)(e), Florida
Statutes (2016). See § 812.014(2)(e), Fla.
Stat. (2016) ("[I]f the property stolen is valued at
$100 or more, but less than $300, the offender commits petit
theft of the first degree, punishable as a misdemeanor of the
first degree. . . ."). Following a disposition hearing,
the juvenile court denied K.M.'s motion for judgment of
dismissal and entered an order finding that K.M. had
committed the offense of petit theft as charged, withholding
adjudication and placing K.M. on probation. The juvenile
court also entered a memorandum of costs, ordering K.M. to
pay court costs, fines, and fees in the amount of $218, which
included a $65 assessment for "[additional] court
costs" under section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes
(2016). This timely appeal follows.
raises two issues on appeal. First, K.M. argues that the
State's sole proof of the value of the stolen merchandise
is inadmissible hearsay. Second, K.M. argues that section
939.185(1)(a) authorizes the imposition of a $65 additional
court cost only where a juvenile has been "adjudicated
delinquent, " not where, as here, adjudication of
delinquency is withheld.
no error by the trial court in admitting the testimony of the
asset protection detective as to the contents of the price
tags indicating the value of the merchandise, in this retail
theft case, as this testimony did not constitute hearsay.
See F.T. v. State, 146 So.3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA
2014) (concluding that the juvenile court did not err in
permitting a loss prevention officer to testify, over
objection, to the price contained on the price tags attached
to merchandise stolen by the appellant and finding that this
testimony was not hearsay in a retail theft case); Watson
v. State, 415 So.2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (per curiam)
(holding that the trial court did not err in allowing a store
employee to testify as to the contents of a price tag that
was affixed to an item of merchandise on the day appellant
was accused of stealing the merchandise and finding that this
testimony did not constitute hearsay). As such, the juvenile
court did not err in finding K.M. delinquent for first-degree
misdemeanor petit theft and we affirm on this issue.
K.M.'s second issue on appeal, the juvenile court erred
in imposing a $65 additional court cost under section
939.185(1)(a) where the juvenile court sustained the
allegations in the juvenile delinquency petition, but
adjudication of delinquency has been withheld. This Court has
recently stated that "section 939.185(1)(a) of the
Florida Statutes (2015) does not authorize a Florida county
to adopt an ordinance imposing an additional $65 court cost
where a juvenile court sustains the allegations in the
juvenile delinquency petition, but adjudication of
delinquency is withheld." H.S. v. State, 42
Fla.L.Weekly D2114 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 4, 2017) ("The
statute simply does not authorize the surcharge when, as
here, a juvenile is found to be delinquent, but adjudication
is withheld."). Accordingly, we reverse as to this issue
and remand with directions that the $65 in additional court
cost be stricken from K.M.'s disposition. Affirmed in
part and reversed in part.
 Subsequently, K.M. filed a motion to
correct disposition error under Florida Rule of Juvenile
Procedure 8.135(b)(2), challenging the imposition of the
additional court cost on the basis that the plain language of
the statute, as well as several cases decided by this Court,
prohibited the juvenile court from imposing the additional
court cost. K.M.'s motion was deemed denied when the
juvenile court failed to file an order ruling on the motion
within thirty days. See H.S. v. ...