ALBERTO A. AGUIRRE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the imposition of adult sanctions against a juvenile defendant, finding the sentencing order sufficiently complied with Troutman requirements, but struck an unannounced probation condition requiring the defendant to pay for substance abuse testing.
A sentencing court's order imposing adult sanctions on a juvenile satisfies Troutman requirements when sufficiently particularized and contemporaneous, but probation conditions requiring payment must be announced at sentencing.
[1] Probation conditions requiring a defendant to pay for services constitute special conditions that must be announced at the sentencing hearing to be enforceable.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAguirre, a juvenile, was sentenced as an adult. The sentencing court imposed adult sanctions and probation conditions, including a requirement to pay …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- Luby v. State, 648 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Whitaker v. Dep't of Ins. & Treas., 680 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Aguirre v. State, 661 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)