Marshall v. State

After a review of the presentence investigation report, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing drug and alcohol treatment related requirements as special conditions of probation. See Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla.1993); Austin v. State, 67 So.3d 403, 406-07 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.