Edwards v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Edwards v. State

728 So. 2d 736, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 102, 1999 Fla. LEXIS 258, 1999 WL 92239

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 1999

DocketNo. 93,880

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 728 So. 2d 736 (Edwards v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwards v. State, 728 So. 2d 736, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 102, 1999 Fla. LEXIS 258, 1999 WL 92239 (Fla. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision addressing the following question certified to be of great public importance:

SHOULD THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DEFENDANT PAY FOR DRUG TESTING BE TREATED AS A GENERAL CONDITION OF PROBATION FOR WHICH NOTICE IS PROVIDED BY SECTION 948.09(6), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), OR SHOULD IT BE TREATED AS A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT REQUIRES ORAL ANNOUNCEMENT?

Edwards v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1439, — So.2d -, 1998 WL 299350 (Fla. 2d DCA June 10, 1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in State v. Williams, 712 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1998), by holding that the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which the trial court must pronounce orally at sentencing. Having answered the certified question, we remand this ease to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Williams.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., recused.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a decision addressing the following question certified to be of great public importance:

SHOULD THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DEFENDANT PAY FOR DRUG TESTING BE TREATED AS A GENERAL CONDITION OF PROBATION FOR WHICH NOTICE IS PROVIDED BY SECTION 948.09(6), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), OR SHOULD IT BE TREATED AS A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT REQUIRES ORAL ANNOUNCEMENT?

Edwards v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1439, — So.2d -, 1998 WL 299350 (Fla. 2d DCA June 10, 1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in State v. Williams, 712 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1998), by holding that the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which the trial court must pronounce orally at sentencing. Having answered the certified question, we remand this ease to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Williams.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., recused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 736, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 102, 1999 Fla. LEXIS 258, 1999 WL 92239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-state-fla-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack