STEVIE LORENZO SCOTT, 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.
Stevie Scott appeals his cocaine trafficking conviction, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding the weight of cocaine and various probation conditions imposed at sentencing. The court affirms the conviction but strikes certain probation conditions and costs that were not properly announced at sentencing.
The evidence was sufficient to prove the weight of cocaine, and the conviction is affirmed. However, certain probation conditions requiring Scott not to consume alcohol, pay for alcohol testing, and submit to substance abuse evaluations must be struck because they were not announced at sentencing. Statutory conditions and those properly announced (such as random drug testing authorized by statute and the prohibition on consuming illegal drugs) are affirmed.
[1] A trial court must orally pronounce special conditions of probation at sentencing to be enforceable, unless the condition is statutorily mandated and provides the defenda…
[2] A defendant is put on notice of statutorily mandated probation conditions, such as random alcohol testing under section 948.03(1)(k)1., Florida Statutes, and such conditi…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“trial court must sufficiently apprise the defendant of the 'substance of each special condition' so that the defendant has the opportunity to object 'to any condition which the defendant believes is inappropriate'”
Establishes the legal standard that probation conditions must be specifically announced at sentencing to provide adequate notice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStevie Scott was convicted of trafficking in cocaine. At sentencing, the trial court imposed various probation conditions including restrictions on al…
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 Notice Of Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stevie Scott appeals from his judgment and sentence for trafficking in cocaine. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to prove the weight of the cocaine and affirm Scott’s conviction. We must, however, strike certain conditions of probation and costs.
We strike the portions of special conditions 8,18, and 20 requiring Scott not to consume any alcohol, to pay for random testing for alcohol, and to submit to and pay for an evaluation to determine whether he has any treatable alcohol problem, because the trial court did not announce these conditions at sentencing. See State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996); Lutz v. State, 21 Fla.L.Weekly D905, — So. 2d— [1996 WL 172084] (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 12, 1996). We affirm the portion of condition 8 which requires Scott to submit to random alcohol testing because section 948.03(l)(k)l., Florida Statutes (1993), provides notice of its imposition. See Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
As to the drug conditions, random substance abusé testing is statutorily mandated when the offense is for controlled substances and probation immediately follows incarceration. § 948.03(l)(k)2., Fla.Stat. (1993). This condition applies to Scott and need not be orally pronounced because the statute puts him on notice. See Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762, 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Conditions 8, 20, and 24 require that Scott submit to and pay for random testing for controlled substances, submit to and pay for an evaluation of any illegal drug problem, successfully complete any recommended program of his supervising officer, and obtain an evaluation to determine if he is in need of inpatient drug treatment. At sentencing, the trial judge announced that Scott would serve “five years drug probation subsequent to prison.” This statement was insufficient to put Scott on notice of the additional drug-related probation conditions. See Nank, 646 So. 2d at 763 (quoting Olvey v. State, 609 So. 2d 640, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (en banc)) (“trial court must sufficiently apprise the defendant of the ‘substance of each special condition’ so that the defendant has the opportunity to object ‘to any condition which the defendant believes is inappropriate’ ”). Thus, we strike the drug-related special conditions, except the random testing portion, as statutorily authorized by section 948.03, and the portion prohibiting Scott from consuming and possessing illegal drugs. See Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
We also strike the $2 discretionary cost imposed pursuant to section 943.25(13), Florida Statutes (1993), because it was not orally announced at sentencing. See Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (en banc).
Affirmed as modified.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ions of drug offender probation relating to alcohol evaluation and treatment and payment for drug and alcohol testing, evaluation, and treatment because they were not orally announced at sentencing. 688 So. 2d at 960. As indicated in Scott v. State, 681 So. 2d 738, 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), a court’s oral statement placing a defendant on “drug probation” is insufficient to put the defendant on notice of additional drug-related probation conditions. Here, the trial court only announced that Ayoub would be subje…
-
Joly v. State, 702 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…did not announce the following special conditions of community control and probation at sentencing, so we must strike them: (1) the portion of probation condition 12 that requires Joly to successfully complete treatment programs, see Scott v. State, 681 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); (2) the portions of probation conditions 12 and 14 and community control condition A relating to alcohol, see Sims v. State, 688 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); (3) the parts of probation conditions 12 and 14 and community control…
-
Rudd v. State, 703 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ith a corrected scoresheet. Rudd also correctly argues that the trial court erred in: (1) requiring him to pay for random testing for alcohol because it was a special condition of probation which was not announced at sentencing, see Scott v. State, 681 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); (2) failing to announce restitution as a condition of probation and listing the police department as the recipient of restitution, see Williams v. State, 588 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Bain v. State, 559 So. 2d 106 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- Nank v. State, 646 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Guinn v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Porter v. State, 609 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Olvey v. State, 609 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Deldesondro Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)