Porchia v. State, 97-348
| Decision Date | 13 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-348,97-348 |
| Citation | 705 So.2d 1050 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D460 Repoleon PORCHIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
We grant the state's motion for rehearing filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a) and substitute this opinion for the former opinion:
Repoleon Porchia was convicted of robbery with a weapon and sentenced to four years in prison followed by two years probation. Porchia challenges three conditions in the order of probation. We affirm except that we strike the provision requiring Porchia to pay for random drug tests.
Condition eight states, "You will work diligently at a lawful occupation, advise your employer of your Probation or Community Control status, and support any other dependents to the best of your ability, as directed by your Probation or Community Control Officer." Porchia asserts this condition fails to consider possible economic conditions which could prevent him from obtaining or maintaining employment. In Armstrong v. State, 620 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), however, we approved a similarly-worded condition of probation. Requiring the defendant to work to the best of his ability immunizes him from penalty should he become unemployed for reasons beyond his control. See Gregory v. State, 616 So.2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Condition eleven requires Porchia to submit to random drug tests as directed by his probation officer and to pay for such tests. The provision for random drug testing is a general condition of probation and need not be orally announced. § 948.03(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (1995). However, the requirement that the defendant pay for the tests is a special condition which must be orally announced. Justice v. State, 674 So.2d 123 (Fla.1996); Jackson v. State, 685 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Because the trial court failed to do so, that provision is stricken and may not be reimposed. Justice. The state has pointed out that section 948.09(6), Florida Statutes (1995) appears to contain the requirement to pay for such testing and the Second District has certified the question whether requiring the probationer to pay for random drug...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'CONNELL v. State
...testing, this is a special condition which must be orally pronounced. See State v. Williams, 712 So.2d 762 (Fla.1998); Porchia v. State, 705 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA), approved, 716 So.2d 766 (Fla.1998). However, we have found no case which holds that failure of trial counsel to object to n......
-
Armstrong v. State, 5D03-2806.
...requires us to strike the condition of payment for the drug tests and bar the reimposition after remand. 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). We also vacate the above-de......
-
State v. Porchia
...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. We answered this question in State v. Williams, 712 So.2d 762 (Fla.19......