State v. Porchia

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Porchia

716 So. 2d 766, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 423, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1475, 1998 WL 608231

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 1998

DocketNo. 92657

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 716 So. 2d 766 (State v. Porchia) 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

State v. Porchia, 716 So. 2d 766, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 423, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1475, 1998 WL 608231 (Fla. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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?

Porchia v. State, 705 So.2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 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.

Accordingly, we approve the decision below.

It is so ordered.

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

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