RALPH EDWARD MARTINO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 the judgment of guilt but remanded for clarification of the sentence due to ambiguity.
Appellant was convicted of unlawful possession and sale of marijuana after a non-jury trial. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence …
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 Confidentiality Of Presentence Reports cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty after a non-jury trial of (1) unlawful possession of marijuana and (2) unlawful sale of marijuana. On this appeal the only point addressed to the judgment urges that the evidence before the court was insufficient to sustain the finding of guilty. The appellant relies upon Kilbee v. State, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 533, and Pinder v. State, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 639. In both cases the Supreme Court of Florida revérsed judgments of guilt because the state failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime charged. We have reviewed the record before us in the light of these cases. We hold that the evidence introduced by the state established beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the two crimes of which the appellant stands convicted.
The appellant’s remaining points are directed to the propriety of the sentence. He urges first that it was error for the court to refuse to reveal to him the contents of the presentence investigation report. This contention is without merit; the refusal was correct because of the confidential nature of such a report. Morgan v. State, Fla.App. 1962, 142 So.2d 308.
The appellant contends next that the trial judge believed he was bound by the report. A presentence investigation report has no binding effect upon a trial judge, Morgan v. State, above, at 310; but we find nothing in the record to support the appellant’s contention.
The state in its brief has conceded that because the trial court first sentenced the appellant and then entered an amended *496order of probation, it is unclear what sentence was imposed upon the appellant. Therefore, in the interest of justice to all concerned, we remand the cause for clarification of sentence.
- The judgment of guilt is affirmed and the cause is remanded for the imposition of an unambiguous sentence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blackburn v. State, 261 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 520. The report given by the Probation and Parole Commission is for the confidential use and consideration by the court and is not a public document. Appellant’s contention is without merit. Martino v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 495. Morgan v. State, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 308. The order revoking the probation and entering sentence is affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Blair Heinlein v. State, 254 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Morgan v. State, Fla. App. 1962, 142 So. 2d 308; Martino v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 495.…
Authorities Cited
- Kilbee v. State, 53 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1951)
- Morgan v. State, 142 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)