Aguirre v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Aguirre v. State

680 So. 2d 566, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8223, 1996 WL 441628

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 7, 1996

DocketNo. 95-01551

StatusPublished

This text of 680 So. 2d 566 (Aguirre v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aguirre v. State, 680 So. 2d 566, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8223, 1996 WL 441628 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the second appeal in this case. In the previous appeal, we reversed and remanded for compliance with the dictates of Troutman v. State, 680 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993), in the sentencing court’s decision to impose adult sanctions. Aguirre v. State, 661 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The appellant now brings his sentencing as an adult before us again complaining that the sentencing court did not comply with either our mandate or Troutman. We disagree. The order imposing adult sanctions is sufficiently particularized and contemporaneous to comport with Troutman and the previous mandate.

We do note, however, that the sentencing court erred in one respect. The written order of probation contains a condition that the appellant pay for substance abuse testing and evaluation. This condition was not announced at the sentencing hearing. The requirement that the appellant pay for this testing renders it a special condition that must be announced at the sentencing hearing. Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). There is no error in the imposition of the other conditions of probation of which the appellant complains. State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996).

We strike the offending portion of condition 12 and otherwise affirm the judgment and sentences.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is the second appeal in this case. In the previous appeal, we reversed and remanded for compliance with the dictates of Troutman v. State, 680 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993), in the sentencing court’s decision to impose adult sanctions. Aguirre v. State, 661 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The appellant now brings his sentencing as an adult before us again complaining that the sentencing court did not comply with either our mandate or Troutman. We disagree. The order imposing adult sanctions is sufficiently particularized and contemporaneous to comport with Troutman and the previous mandate.

We do note, however, that the sentencing court erred in one respect. The written order of probation contains a condition that the appellant pay for substance abuse testing and evaluation. This condition was not announced at the sentencing hearing. The requirement that the appellant pay for this testing renders it a special condition that must be announced at the sentencing hearing. Luby v. State, 648 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). There is no error in the imposition of the other conditions of probation of which the appellant complains. State v. Hart, 668 So.2d 589 (Fla.1996).

We strike the offending portion of condition 12 and otherwise affirm the judgment and sentences.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

680 So. 2d 566, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8223, 1996 WL 441628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguirre-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack