Curry v. State, 85910
| Decision Date | 07 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 85910,85910 |
| Citation | 682 So.2d 1091 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly S492 John F. CURRY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John F. Curry, Avon Park, pro se.
Jeffrey E. Appel of Holland & Knight, Lakeland, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Bureau Chief, Criminal Law Division, and Stephen D. Ake, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.
We accepted jurisdiction to review Curry v. State, 656 So.2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), which certified conflict with Navarre v. State, 608 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). However, on closer examination, we find that review was improvidently granted.
The cases address different propositions of law which are not in conflict. The district court in Curry correctly struck that portion of the defendant's probation order that required him to pay for drug evaluation and treatment programs "because this is a special condition not announced orally" in the defendant's presence at sentencing. 656 So.2d at 522.
In contrast, the defendant in Navarre objected to a condition of probation requiring him to submit to drug evaluation and screening as not reasonably related to his second-degree murder and battery offenses. 608 So.2d at 526. The First District affirmed the condition of probation, holding that it "is a standard condition of probation that can be imposed on any probationer, irrespective of whether it reasonably relates to the type of offense." Id. at 528. The First District was correct because such a requirement was a standard condition of probation provided for in section 948.03(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). The First District did not address a "special" condition requiring the defendant to pay for his drug evaluation and treatment as did the Second District in Curry.
Because no conflict exists between Curry and Navarre, we accordingly dismiss the petition.
It is so ordered.
NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WILL BE ALLOWED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...to hold that requiring a defendant to pay for alcohol or drug testing is a special condition of probation. Id. (citing Curry v. State, 682 So.2d 1091 (Fla.1996); Wallace v. State, 682 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Malone v. State, 652 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA The State, however, argued that ......
-
Smith v. State, 96-03383
...this court and the Florida Supreme Court have stated otherwise, see Brock v. State, 688 So.2d 909, 912 n. 4 (Fla.1997); Curry v. State, 682 So.2d 1091 (Fla.1996), we adhere to those cases and hold that requiring a defendant to pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation, as we ......
-
Joly v. State, 96-00177
...conditions A and F requiring payment for evaluation, referral, treatment, urinalysis, breathalyzer or blood tests, see Curry v. State, 682 So.2d 1091 (Fla.1996); (4) probation condition 15, which forbids Joly to use alcohol and visit places where alcohol is sold, see Reed v. State, 652 So.2......
-
Diaz v. State, 96-00413
...Diaz pay for the drug and alcohol testing because it was a special condition which was not pronounced at sentencing. See Curry v. State, 682 So.2d 1091 (Fla.1996). We strike the condition requiring Diaz to pay for mental health evaluation and treatment for the same reason. Justice v. State,......
-
Certifying questions to the Florida Supreme Court: what's so important?
...Realty Ltd. P'ship, 553 So. 2d 1203, 1226 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1989) (Lehan, A.C.J., concurring specially). (31) See, e.g., Curry v. State, 682 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1996); Vega v. Independent Fire Ins. Co., 666 So. 2d 897 (Fla. (32) See, e.g., Walsingham v. State, 576 So. 2d 365, 366 (Fla. 2d D.C.A......