State v. Porchia, 716 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Porchia, 716 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Armstrong v. State (fladistctapp, 2005-02-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Armstrong v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
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).
STATE of Florida
v.
Repoleon PORCHIA
No. 92657.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug 20, 1998.
716 So. 2d 766
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Maximillian J. Changus, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner., James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Dee Ball, Assistant Public Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.
Anstead, Harding, Kogan, Overton, Pariente, Shaw, Wells.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
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.