WAYNE MICHAEL ARANJO, 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 blood testing under section 943.325 is invalid when the underlying conviction is not for an offense listed in that statute.
Aranjo was convicted of aggravated assault, a violation of section 784.021(1)(b), Florida Statutes, based on a plea agreement. The original charge was…
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 Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Aranjo challenges on appeal a special condition of his probation that he submit to blood testing by the Department of Law Enforcement, as required by section 943.325. He was sentenced on February 28, 1997, for aggravated assault, a violation of section 784.021(l)(b), Florida Statutes, based on a plea agreement. Originally, the information filed against him charged he had committed a lewd or lascivious assault upon a child, in violation of section 800.04(1), over a three-year time span (1990 through 1993). The information was amended December 1996 to charge him only with aggravated assault. We strike the challenged condition.
Section 943.325 provides that any person who is convicted or has been convicted of any offense or attempted offense defined in chapter 794, chapter 800, sections 782.04, 784.045, 812.133 or 812.135, shall be required to submit two specimens of blood to the Department for purposes of DNA analysis, the results of which are entered into a database. However, section 784.021(l)(b) was never one of the crimes listed in any version of section 943.325. Defense counsel pointed out at sentencing that the blood test requirement had been waived by the state’s amendment of the information and the plea.
Under these circumstances, there is no authority pursuant to section 943.325 to require the blood test. This condition has no relation to the charge to which Aranjo pled. Thus, the condition of probation cannot be sustained. See Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1993); James v. State, 696 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Thompson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Coleman v. State, 496 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
AFFIRMED in part; Condition of Probation STRICKEN.
COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beck v. State, 817 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…n of law and thus must be reviewed de novo. Currently, by statute and case law, a trial court is required to enter written reasons for an upward departure sentence within seven days of sentencing. § 921.0016(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001); State v. West, 718 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (“Timely written reasons for departure sentences, upward or downward are required”); Wilcox v. State, 664 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Here, the trial court failed to enter its written reasons for its upward departure at t…
Authorities Cited
- Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1993)
- Coleman v. State, 496 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Milo Fred James, III v. State, 696 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Thompson v. State, 589 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)