Damerius Kashon Hart v. State of Florida - Extradition Costs Affirmed
Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the trial court's imposition of $4,025 in extradition costs against Damerius Kashon Hart, who was found guilty by jury of two counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child between ages 12 and 16. The court rejected Hart's challenge to the extradition costs, holding that such costs are authorized under Florida Statute Section 938.27(1) as costs of prosecution. The erroneous reference to section 941.06 as statutory authority did not invalidate the assessment because the judgment provided the amount and description of the assessment.
“Hart's challenge to the trial court's imposition of extradition costs is meritless because such imposition is authorized by Florida law.”
About this source
Florida's District Courts of Appeal sit between the trial courts and the Florida Supreme Court. Six districts cover the state, hearing appeals on civil judgments, criminal convictions, family law orders, and administrative decisions. This feed tracks every published opinion across all six districts, around 125 a month, with the case name, appellant, type of relief sought, and outcome. Watch this if you practice civil litigation in Florida, defend insurance disputes (the carriers fight a lot of appeals here), or follow Florida's busy criminal post-conviction docket. GovPing pulls from CourtListener's official mirror of the courts' RSS feeds.
What changed
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment including $4,025 in extradition costs. The court held that section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2022) authorizes the imposition of extradition costs as costs of prosecution in criminal cases, and that a scrivener's error referencing section 941.06 instead of 938.27 did not render the cost assessment invalid since the amount and description were provided in the judgment.
Criminal defendants in Florida facing extradition cost assessments should note that while trial courts must include the amount and description of any assessment, they are not required to cite a specific statute to sustain the assessment. Defense counsel should review judgments for accurate statutory citations but should not assume an incorrect citation alone will invalidate a cost assessment if the amount and description are properly stated.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Damerius Kashon Hart v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 6D2024-1345
Disposition: Affirmed
Disposition
Affirmed
Combined Opinion
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2024-1345
Lower Tribunal No. 2022CF003270
DAMERIUS KASHON HART,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County.
Keith A. Carsten, Judge.
April 24, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Damerius Kashon Hart appeals his judgment and sentence after a jury found
him guilty as charged of two counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child between
the ages of twelve and sixteen. Hart’s challenge to the trial court’s imposition of
extradition costs is meritless because such imposition is authorized by Florida law.
See § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“In all criminal . . . cases, convicted persons are
liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred
by law enforcement agencies, . . . if requested by such agencies. The court shall
include these costs in every judgment rendered against the convicted person.”); Bass
v. State, 873 So. 2d 569, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (recognizing that extradition costs
are costs of prosecution authorized under section 938.27(1)). Because the trial
court’s imposition of $4,025 is described as “Cost of Extradition,” it is not rendered
invalid by the erroneous reference to section 941.06 as “Statutory Authority.” 1 See
Redman v. State, 412 So. 3d 201, 203 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (explaining that a trial
court is not required to cite a specific statute for an assessment, if it provides the
amount and description of the assessment). We reject Hart’s other arguments on
appeal without further discussion.
AFFIRMED.
STARGEL, WHITE and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.
Robert David Malove and Hani Demetrious, of The Law Office of Robert David
Malove, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
1
To avoid this issue in the future, we suggest that the scrivener’s error on the
form be corrected to refer to section 938.27 as “Statutory Authority” for “Cost of
Extradition.”
2
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for FL District Court of Appeal Opinions
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from FL DCA.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when FL District Court of Appeal Opinions publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.