STANLEY MAC BENNER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed special probation conditions that were orally pronounced (abstinence from alcohol and drugs) but reversed and remanded the substance abuse treatment requirement that was not orally pronounced at sentencing.
Special conditions of probation must be orally pronounced at the time of sentencing to be valid, and conditions that were not so pronounced must be reversed.
[1] Special conditions of probation are valid only if orally pronounced by the trial court at the time of sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“special condition of probation had to be pronounced orally to be properly imposed”
Citing State v. Williams and Holmes v. State for the requirement that special probation conditions must be orally pronounced
Benner was convicted of DUI and sentenced to probation with special drug offender conditions, including abstinence from alcohol and drugs and completi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Drug Offender Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion, in which he asserts that he was improperly sentenced to drug offender probation because his DUI conviction was not an offense contained within chapter 893, Florida Statutes, as required by sections 948.034 and 948.20, Florida Statutes.
When denying Appellant’s 3.800(a) motion, the postconviction court clarified that the drug offender portions of Appellant’s probation were not imposed pursuant to sections 948.034 or 948.20, Florida Statutes. Rather, the trial court had imposed standard probation with special drug offender conditions. However, the trial court failed to orally pronounce the special conditions at the time they were imposed. See State v. Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1998) (holding special condition of probation had to be pronounced orally to be properly imposed); Holmes v. State, 866 So. 2d 144, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (same).
Here, the trial court orally pronounced the special conditions that Appellant not consume any alcohol or non-prescribed drugs during his probation. Consequently, those conditions are valid and are AFFIRMED. However, the trial court failed to orally pronounce the requirement that Appellant complete a substance abuse treatment program at his own expense. Consequently that condition is REVERSED.
AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BARFIELD, WOLF, and HAWKES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Chuck Junior Williams, 712 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1998)
- Holmes v. State, 866 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)