Case ID: so2d_710/html/0980-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WELLS, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Terry L. SMITH, Respondent.
    No. 91852.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    June 4, 1998.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Petitioner.
    James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for Respondent.
   WELLS, Justice.

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?

Smith v. State, 702 So.2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in State v. Williams, No. 91,655, — So.2d - (Fla. June 4, 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.

KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.