Case Name: James EDWARDS, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-02-25
Citations: 728 So. 2d 736
Docket Number: No. 93,880
Parties: James EDWARDS, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 728
Pages: 736–736

Head Matter:
James EDWARDS, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 93,880.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 25, 1999.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bar-tow, Florida, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Robert J. Krauss, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review a decision addressing 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?
Edwards v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1439, — So.2d -, 1998 WL 299350 (Fla. 2d DCA June 10, 1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answered this question in State v. Williams, 712 So.2d 762 (Fla. 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. Having answered the certified question, we remand this ease to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Williams.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
QUINCE, J., recused.