Case ID: so2d_619/html/1057-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Miguel Angel ESTRADA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 92-02576.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    June 25, 1993.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Miguel Angel Estrada, challenges certain conditions of his probation and the imposition of certain costs. We affirm.

We write only to explain that the conditions concerning alcohol use and testing do not violate Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993) because they were related to the offense for which appellant was convicted. The record reveals that appellant told police that he committed the offense because he was intoxicated.

We find no error in the other challenged condition and the imposition of costs and, accordingly, affirm.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.