CHUCK JUNIOR WILLIAMS, 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.
Chuck Junior Williams appealed his drug convictions and sentences, challenging various sentencing conditions and assessments. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed portions of the sentencing order, striking certain probation conditions and fines that were not properly announced or imposed with notice, while certifying a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing constitutes a general or special probation condition.
The court struck portions of condition 18 for lack of oral announcement, struck the $44.77 discretionary fine imposed without announcement, and ordered the trial court to provide Williams notice and opportunity to contest the $150 public defender's lien. The court held that requiring a defendant to pay for drug testing is a special condition requiring oral announcement, but certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court given conflicting statutory provisions.
[1] Special conditions of probation must be announced at sentencing.
[2] A trial court errs by imposing a public defender's lien without notice of the right to contest the amount.
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“Because they were not orally announced, we strike the challenged portions of condition 18 in accordance with Callaway.”
Establishes that special probation conditions must be orally announced at sentencing to be valid
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of several drug charges and sentenced to probation with numerous conditions. The trial court imposed various probation conditio…
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 General Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Chuck Junior Williams appeals his convictions and sentences for several drug charges. We affirm the convictions without discussion, but reverse some portions of the sentencing order. Williams first objects to those portions of probation condition 18 which this court has previously held to be special conditions that must be announced at sentencing. See Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Because they were not orally announced, we strike the challenged portions of condition 18 in accordance with Callaway.
Williams also correctly contends that the trial court erred by imposing a $150 public defender’s lien without giving notice that he had a right to contest that amount. On remand Williams shall have thirty days from the date of the mandate within which to file a written objection to the amount assessed. If an objection is filed with the trial court, the assessment shall be stricken and a new assessment shall not be imposed without notice and hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(d)(1). See Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Williams next contends that the trial court erred in assessing a $44.77 discretionary fine; pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (1995), without announcing the fine at sentencing. We agree and strike the fine. See Price v. State, 697 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Anderson v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1796, — So. 2d —, 1997 WL 400340 (Fla. 2d DCA July 18, 1997).
As to Conditions 8, 20 and 24 dealing with drug and alcohol testing and treatment, Williams contends that he was given no notice at sentencing that he would b.e required to pay for the testing. This court has held that requiring a defendant to pay for either alcohol or drug testing is a special condition of probation which must be announced at sentencing. See, e.g., Wallace v. State, 682 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (drug testing); Malone v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (alcohol testing).
The State in this ease has pointed out, however, that section 948.09(6), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that a defendant on supervision may be required by the Department of Corrections to pay for drug urinalysis and that the failure to pay may be considered a ground for revocation by the court. This provision supports a conclusion that the probation condition requiring a defendant to pay for drug testing is a general condition that need not be orally announced. Since both this court and the Florida Supreme Court have stated otherwise, see Curry v. State, 682 So. 2d 1091 (Fla.1996), we adhere to those cases and hold that requiring a defendant to pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation, but certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:
SHOULD THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DEFENDANT PAY FOR DRUG TESTING BE TREATED AS A GENER AL CONDITION OF PROBATION FOR WHICH NOTICE IS PROVIDED BY SECTION 948.09(6), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), OR SHOULD IT BE TREATED AS A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT REQUIRES ORAL ANNOUNCEMENT?
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
PARKER, C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bourque v. State, 595 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Guinn v. State, 652 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Deldesondro Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Curry v. State, 682 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1996)
- Wallace v. State, 682 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Price v. State, 697 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Miran Lawson v. State, 697 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)