EDMOND A. WELBORN, 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.
Edmond Welborn appealed his drug trafficking conviction and sentence, challenging conditions of drug offender probation that were not orally pronounced and the constitutionality of the drug offender probation statute. The court partially affirmed but remanded to strike three special conditions that were not orally pronounced as required by law.
Conditions (1) through (8), which are statutorily imposed and listed in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e), need not be orally pronounced. However, conditions (9), (11), and (12), which are special conditions not statutorily imposed or listed in the rule, must be orally pronounced. The constitutional challenge to the drug offender probation statute is rejected. The $255 costs issue was not properly preserved because Welborn did not object at sentencing.
[1] Statutorily imposed conditions of drug offender probation, which are contained in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e), need not be orally pronounced.
[2] Special conditions of drug offender probation, which are neither statutorily imposed nor listed in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e), must be orally pronounced.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“conditions (1) through (8) are statutorily imposed conditions and are contained in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e). These conditions need not be orally pronounced.”
Establishes the rule that standard statutorily imposed conditions do not require oral pronouncement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWelborn entered a nolo contendere plea to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and use …
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 Oral Pronouncement Of Sentence Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, Judge.
Appellant, Edmond Welbom, entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and use or possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to 90 days in the county jail and placed on drug offender probation for two (2) years in counts I and II and for nine (9) months in count III. Further, the court reserved jurisdiction as to the issue of costs of prosecution and without objection by Wel-born, entered judgment for statutory costs in the amount of $255. On appeal, Welbom contends that the conditions of drug offender probation imposed were not orally pronounced and should be stricken, and that section 948.01(13)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), establishing drug offender probation, is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency.
We reject Welbom’s argument that conditions which pertain to “probation” and “community control” do not apply to “drug offender probation.” See Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Mosley v. State, 677 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Thus, we find that conditions (1) through (8) are statutorily imposed conditions and are contained in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e). These conditions need not be orally pronounced. See State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996). However, we find that conditions (9), (11), and (12), which are neither statutorily imposed nor listed in rule 3.986(e), are special conditions which must be orally pronounced. Accordingly, we reverse Welborn’s sentence and remand to the trial court to strike said conditions.
As to condition (14), requiring Wel-born to pay $255 in statutory costs, we find that appellant failed to preserve this issue. Although given notice and an opportunity to be heard, Welbom did not object. Accordingly, he may not raise this issue on appeal. See Norman v. State, 676 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Welborn also claims that section 948.01(13)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), establishing drag offender probation is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an administrative agency. Following Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), we reject this argument.
AFFIRM IN PART; REMAND WITH DIRECTIONS TO STRIKE CONDITIONS (9), (11), AND (12).
PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cole v. State, 932 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…n is determined by reference to Florida Statutes section 948.803 and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(e); conditions which appear in neither the statute nor the rule are considered special and must be orally pronounced. See Welborn v. State, 687 So. 2d 35, 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). This Court has determined that conditions which must be [*1125] orally pronounced include curfew and substance abuse treatment requirements in drug offender probation c…
-
Batts v. State, 693 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ndition 11 which requires that the appellant pay for blood and other tests, see Jackson v. State, 685 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); and (2) condition 12, which confines the appellant to her residence with certain exceptions, see Welborn v. State, 687 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). PROBATION ORDER AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). . §§ 893.03(l)(c)4, 893.13(2)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (1996).…
-
Gearhart v. State, 692 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…PROBATION ORDER VACATED IN PART; AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). . See Boyd v. State, 688 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). . See Welborn v. State, 687 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- Traman D. Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Norman v. State, 676 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Estaban Sosa v. State, 677 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Beryl Mosley v. State, 677 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)