JOHN F. CURRY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court dismissed a petition for review, finding no conflict between two district court decisions regarding probation conditions—one addressing procedural requirements for special conditions and the other addressing the validity of standard probation conditions.
No conflict exists between cases addressing different propositions: one requiring oral announcement of special probation conditions and the other permitting standard probation conditions without relation to the offense.
[1] A special condition of probation requiring payment for drug evaluation and treatment must be announced orally in the defendant's presence at sentencing to be valid.
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 intelligence“because this is a special condition not announced orally”
The Second District struck a probation condition requiring payment for drug evaluation and treatment because it was a special condition not announced orally at sentencing.
Curry's probation order included a special condition requiring payment for drug evaluation and treatment programs not announced orally at sentencing; …
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 Standard Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We accepted jurisdiction to review Curry v. State, 656 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), which certified conflict with Navarre v. State, 608 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). However, on closer examination, we find that review was improvidently granted. The cases address different propositions of law which are not in conflict. The district court in Curry correctly struck that portion of the defendant’s probation order that required him to pay for drug evaluation and treatment programs “because this is a special condition not announced orally” in the defendant’s presence at sentencing. 656 So. 2d at 522.
In contrast, the defendant in Navarre objected to a condition of probation requiring him to submit to drug evaluation and screening as not reasonably related to his second-degree murder and battery offenses. 608 So. 2d at 526. The First District affirmed the condition of probation, holding that it “is a standard condition of probation that can be imposed on any probationer, irrespective of whether it reasonably relates to the type of offense.” Id. at 528. The First District was correct because such a requirement was a standard condition of probation provided for in section 948.03(l)(j), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). The First District did not address a “special” condition requiring the defendant to pay for his drug evaluation and treatment as did the Second District in Curry.
Because no conflict exists between Curry and Navarre, we accordingly dismiss the petition.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
State v. Chuck Junior Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1998)…, 751-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The district court relied on precedent from this Court and its own previous decisions to hold that requiring a defendant to pay for alcohol or drug testing is a special condition of probation. Id. (citing Curry v. State, 682 So. 2d 1091 (Fla.1996); Wallace v. State, 682 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)). The State, however, argued that none of these precedent eases addressed section 948.09(6), Florida Statutes (1995),3 which author…
-
Diaz v. State, 691 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…onduct or future criminality. Thus, we affirm the imposition of that condition. We strike the requirement that Diaz pay for the drug and alcohol testing because it was a special condition which was not pronounced at sentencing. See Curry v. State, 682 So. 2d 1091 (Fla.1996). We strike the condition requiring Diaz to pay for mental health evaluation and treatment for the same reason. Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123 (Fla.1996). Finally, we strike the imposition of $269.75 in court costs because the trial cour…
-
Smith v. State, 709 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…h from consuming and possessing illegal drugs. See Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We also strike those portions of condition twenty that require Smith to pay for drug evaluation and treatment programs. See Curry v. State, 682 So. 2d 1091, 1092 (Fla.1996). The trial court also erred in imposing a $150 FDLE fee without a request for the fee and without documentation justifying the amount. This fee must be stricken. See Madison v. State, 664 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Finally,…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Curry v. State, 656 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Navarre v. State, 608 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)