Supreme Court of Florida, 1998

State v. Porchia

Supreme Court of Florida · Decided August 20, 1998 · Anstead, Harding, Kogan, Overton, Pariente, Shaw, Wells

716 So. 2d 766; 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 423; 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1475; 1998 WL 608231 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Armstrong v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
Burch v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
O'CONNELL v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.