State v. Huff
State v. Huff
710 So. 2d 979; 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 295; 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1038; 1998 WL 286282
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
State v. Huff
Opinion of the Court
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?
Huff v. State, 700 So.2d 787, 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, ยง 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in State v. Williams, No. 91,655, โ So.2d - (Fla. June 4, 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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.