ARTHUR ANDREW, 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.
A defendant cannot be sentenced to drug offender probation unless convicted of a specified offense or agreeing to it in a plea, and special conditions must relate to rehabilitation.
[1] A defendant may not be sentenced to drug offender probation unless convicted of an enumerated chapter 893 offense or having specifically agreed to such probation in a ple…
[2] A court may impose special conditions of probation that are desirable for rehabilitation.
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 intelligenceArthur Andrew pleaded guilty to burglary and robbery and was sentenced to prison followed by drug offender probation. He challenged the trial court's …
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 Drug Offender Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Andrew (“Andrew”) entered an open guilty plea to burglary of a dwelling with a battery and strong arm robbery, and was sentenced to 6.25 years in prison, followed by 5 years of drug offender probation. He appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, in which he challenged the trial court’s authority to impose the drug offender aspect of his probation.
“A defendant may not be sentenced to drug offender probation unless he has been convicted of an enumerated chapter 893 offense or he has specifically agreed to such probation in a plea agreement.” Ackermann v. State, 962 So. 2d 407, 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (reversing summary denial of rule 3.800(a) motion); accord Anderson v. State, 941 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Parker v. State, 839 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also § 948.034, Fla. Stat. (2003). However, a court may impose special conditions of probation which are desirable for rehabilitation. Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1993). “In determining whether a condition of probation is reasonably related to rehabilitation, ... a condition is invalid if it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.” Id. at 734-35 (quoting Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7, 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)).
During his sentencing hearing, Andrew admitted he was an addict. However, we are unable to determine from the record whether those conditions associated with drug offender probation are reasonably related to Andrew’s rehabilitation and, therefore, would be appropriate special conditions of probation under the Bil-ler test. Accordingly, we reverse only that portion of Andrew’s sentence which imposes drug offender probation, with leave for the trial court to substitute a term of probation with or without special conditions related to substance abuse; provided such special conditions satisfy the Biller test.
Reversed and Remanded.
SHAHOOD, C.J., STONE and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carson v. State, 37 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…7 (reversing the imposition of drug offender probation, but remanding with leave for the trial court to substitute, for the drug offender probation, a term of probation with or without special conditions related to substance abuse); Andrew v. State, 988 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (same). The majority also misstates the holding and application of the supreme court’s decision in Quarterman v. State, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1988), when it asserts that the supreme court has receded from its holding that a trial…
-
Beals v. State, 14 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…hat the trial court imposed the drug conditions as terms of drug offender probation, for which the offense of carrying a concealed firearm did not qualify him, and nothing in the summary record refuted that allegation. As we did in Andrew v. State, 988 So. 2d 158, 159-60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), we reverse the denial of this ground, but with leave for the trial court to substitute, for the drug offender probation, a term of probation with or without special conditions related to substance abuse, provided those s…
-
Taylor v. State, 17 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…to count I. Taylor correctly contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct sentence because drug offender probation is not authorized for the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See, e.g., Andrew v. State, 988 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (recognizing that a defendant may not be sentenced to drug offender probation unless he has been convicted of an enumerated drug offense or has specifically agreed to such probation in a plea agreement); State v. Roper, 915 So. 2…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1993)
- Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Ackermann v. State, 962 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Parker v. State, 839 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Anderson v. State, 941 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)