STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
REPOLEON PORCHIA, RESPONDENT
STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
REPOLEON PORCHIA, RESPONDENT
716 So. 2d 766
Florida Supreme Court (1998)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the following question certified to be of great public importance:
SHOULD THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DEFENDANT PAY FOR DRUG TESTING BE TREATED AS A GENERAL 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?
Porchia v. State, 705 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in State v. Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1998), by holding that the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which the trial court must pronounce orally at sentencing.
Accordingly, we approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, WELLS, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Connell v. State, 733 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…With regard to Condition 12, which requires O’Connell to pay for drug testing, this is a special condition which must be orally pronounced. See State v. Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1998); Porchia v. State, 705 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA), approved, 716 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1998). However, we have found no case which holds that failure of trial counsel to object to not orally pronouncing this condition amounts to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In order to rise to this level, trial counsel’s performance m…
-
Armstrong v. State, 896 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…court’s failure to orally pronounce condition 24 at sentencing requires us to strike the condition of payment for the drug tests and bar the reimposition after remand. See, e.g., Porchia v. State, 705 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved, 716 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1998); Harris v. State, 698 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We also vacate the above-described conditions 21, 22 and 23, but remand for reimposition of the costs if the requirements of sections 938.27(1) and 939.18 can be met. See, e.g., Pagliu…
-
Burch v. State, 823 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…herefore reverse and remand as to the requirement that Appellant pay for drug and alcohol testing1 and as to the 4% surcharge. See Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123, 125 (Fla.1996); State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589, 592-593 (Fla.1996); State v. Porchia, 716 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1998); Klug v. State, 667 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court must issue an amended written probation order, and it may not reimpose these special conditions. See Carter v. State, 787 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001);…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Chuck Junior Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1998)
- Repoleon Porchia v. State, 705 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)