FREDI HERBERT CLARKE, 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 held that the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant's request for a pre-sentence investigation because no mitigating or aggravating circumstances were presented.
Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to five years. After conviction, he requested a pre-sentence investigation, which the tria…
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 Presentence Investigation Report cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, Clarke appeals from a conviction for aggravated assault and his sentence for five years.
After conviction, his request, by private counsel, for a pre-sentence investigation was not granted by the trial judge. He asserts the denial of this request was reversible error under Rule 1.780, “Cr.PR”, 33 F.S.A.
We do not agree. The rule requires the court under certain circumstances, to inquire into mitigating or aggravating circumstances prior to sentencing a convicted defendant. The rule requires in pertinent part:
“When the court has discretion as to the penalty to be inflicted on the defendant, it shall, upon the suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may properly be taken into consideration, * *
There was no suggestion here as to any mitigating or aggravating circumstances which the defendant wanted the court to properly consider in a pre-sentence investigation. The rule requires that some circumstances be presented to the trial judge for his proper consideration in order to show that there is a necessity or requirement for a pre-sentence investigation. This was not done in the instant case. No reversible error was committed, therefore.
We considered the other points raised by the defendant for reversal on appeal and find them to be without merit.
For these reasons the judgment and sentence herein appealed be and the same is hereby
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guerrero v. State, 281 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ying his request for a pre-sentencing investigation. The judgment of conviction was entered on May 5, 1972. At that time the matter of ordering a pre-sentencing investigation was one within the discretion of the court. Clarke v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So. 2d 486. Here prior to sentencing, a hearing was had in which matters bearing on mitigation and extenuation were presented for the court’s consideration. No error was committed by the trial court in denying the defendant’s motion for pre-sentencing investig…
-
Rozie James Smith v. State, 259 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24; Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 264; Dreger v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 431; Clarke v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So. 2d 486.…
-
Barber v. State, 288 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…rt’s own order giving him the benefit of probation. Defendant, having been granted the privilege of probation and having abused it, may not require further [*283] consideration from the court under the rule stated. Cf. Clarke v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So. 2d 486. Affirmed.…