ERIC SANFORD, 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 held that a condition of probation requiring the defendant to pay for random drug testing must be orally pronounced at sentencing and cannot be included in the written order if not pronounced.
[1] A condition of probation requiring a defendant to pay for random drug testing must be orally pronounced at sentencing.
[2] A trial court may not impose a financial obligation for drug testing as a condition of probation if the governing statute does not specifically provide for such financial…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant's written order of probation included a requirement to pay for random drug testing, but this requirement was not orally pronounced by th…
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 Delivery Of Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, Judge.
We affirm appellant’s judgment and conviction on the charge of delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine but strike that portion of the order of probation requiring appellant to pay costs of random testing as it was not orally pronounced at sentencing.
Appellant’s order of probation states in pertinent part as follows:
5. You will submit to urinalysis, breathalyzer or blood tests at any time requested by your officer or the professional staff of any treatment center where you are receiving treatment, to determine possible use of alcohol, drugs or controlled substances. You shall be required to pay for such tests unless otherwise waived by your officer. (Once a month)[in handwriting].
(Emphasis added).
At sentencing, the trial court failed to orally pronounce the requirement that appellant was to pay for drug testing. Further, this condition is not a condition approved in rule 3.986, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (1995). Therefore, the condition must be orally pronounced at sentencing.
This court, in Fernandez v. State, 677 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), struck that portion of the condition of probation requiring the defendant to pay costs of random testing. In finding it to be improper, the court explained that:
While section 948.03, which enumerates the terms and conditions of probation for all forms of probation, authorizes a trial court to impose random testing, the statute does not specifically provide for a defendant to be financially responsible for the testing. See § 948.03(l)(k)l; Dean. For this reason the requirement that defendant pay the cost of testing as a condition of probation must be stricken because it was not orally pronounced. Dean v. State, 669 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Catholic v. State, 632 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
677 So. 2d at 333-34; see also Dean v. State, 669 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Catholic v. State, 632 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bunn v. State, 687 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…own expense must be stricken as they were never orally imposed by the trial court at sentencing. We agree and remand to the trial with directions to strike condition (B), which requires appellant to pay for random drug testing. See Sanford v. State, 684 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Fernandez v. State, 677 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), review dismissed, No. 88,340, 683 So. 2d 485 (Fla. Oct. 24,1996). Similarly, conditions (A), (C), (D) and (E), which require appellant to observe a curfew, report [*880] da…
Authorities Cited
- Catholic v. State, 632 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Fernandez v. State, 677 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Dean v. State, 669 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)