State v. Porchia
716 So. 2d 766, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 423, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1475, 1998 WL 608231
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Porchia, 716 So. 2d 766, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 423, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1475, 1998 WL 608231 (Fla. 1998).
716 So. 2d 766 (State v. Porchia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Armstrong v. State
896 So. 2d 866 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Burch v. State
823 So. 2d 854 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
O'CONNELL v. State
733 So. 2d 556 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)