State v. Huff

Supreme Court of Alabama

State v. Huff

710 So. 2d 979, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 295, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1038, 1998 WL 286282

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 4, 1998

DocketNo. 91851

StatusPublished

This text of 710 So. 2d 979 (State v. Huff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Huff, 710 So. 2d 979, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 295, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1038, 1998 WL 286282 (Ala. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Justice.

We have for review 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?

Huff v. State, 700 So.2d 787, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in State v. Williams, No. 91,655, — So.2d - (Fla. June 4, 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. Accordingly, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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