Diaz v. State, 96-00413
| Decision Date | 16 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-00413,96-00413 |
| Citation | 691 So.2d 589 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D985 Luis H. DIAZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Cynthia J. Dodge, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen D. Ake, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Luis Diaz challenges his sentences for armed burglary, armed kidnapping, and armed robbery. He argues that the trial court erred in: (1) ordering him to submit to and pay for random drug and alcohol testing, (2) ordering him to pay for mental health evaluation and treatment, and (3) imposing costs without specifying which statute authorized the costs. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Diaz argues that the condition requiring random drug and alcohol testing is invalid because the record does not show that drugs or alcohol have any relevance to kidnapping, armed robbery, or armed burglary. In support of his argument, he cites Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993) (). However, the Biller analysis only applies to special conditions of probation. Brock v. State, 688 So.2d 909 (Fla. 1997). The condition requiring random drug and alcohol testing is a general condition. § 948.03(1)(j)1, Fla.Stat. (1993). It need not be orally pronounced at sentencing, nor must it relate to the defendant's present criminal conduct or future criminality. Thus, we affirm the imposition of that condition.
We strike the requirement that 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, 674 So.2d 123 (Fla.1996). Finally, we strike the imposition of $269.75 in court costs because the trial court failed to cite statutory authority for the costs. See Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We affirm Diaz's sentences in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ladson v. State
...condition." The "submit to" portion of this condition is a standard condition that need not be orally pronounced. See Diaz v. State, 691 So.2d 589, 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). However, the "pay for" portion is a special condition that must be orally pronounced. See State v. Williams, 712 So.2d ......
-
Tremaine v. State, 95-02791
...DCA 1985). Finally, we strike that portion of condition 12 which requires Tremaine to pay for substance evaluation. See Diaz v. State, 691 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Affirmed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to correct the sentence and probation order in accordance with ......
-
Benton v. State, 96-05032
...to pay for random testing for alcohol and controlled substance use, was not orally pronounced and must be stricken. See Diaz v. State, 691 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). PATTERSON and WHATLEY, JJ., ...
-
Koy v. State, 95-04877
...8 of the probation order which requires appellant to pay for testing. See Curry v. State, 682 So.2d 1091 (Fla.1996); Diaz v. State, 691 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). BLUE, J., and RYDER, HERBOTH S., Senior Judge, ...