WALTER STEPHEN BUCKLES, 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.
Buckles appealed a jury verdict convicting him and a five-year sentence imposed without a presentence investigation. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentencing on the ground that the trial judge failed to comply with the mandatory presentence investigation rule.
The court affirmed the jury verdict and conviction but reversed and remanded the sentence, holding that Rule 3.710 RCrP is mandatory and the trial judge misunderstood or misapplied it. The trial court must determine whether Buckles has prior felony convictions or, in the alternative, must conduct a presentence investigation and resentence him.
[1] A prior conviction for a felony is not a prerequisite for the mandatory application of Rule 3.710, RCrP, regarding presentence investigations.
[2] A trial court's misunderstanding or misapplication of Rule 3.710, RCrP, necessitates reversal of a sentence imposed without a presentence investigation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“However, as to the failure to require a presentence investigation we must reverse.”
The primary holding that the sentencing was improper for failing to comply with the mandatory presentence investigation requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBuckles was convicted by jury and sentenced to five years in prison. The trial judge did not require a presentence investigation, relying on an interp…
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 Prior Felony Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, now appeals judgment entered on an adverse jury verdict and the resulting five year sentence imposed without benefit of presentence investigation.
Our review of the record reveals appellant’s attack upon the jury verdict and adjudication of guilt to be without merit. However, as to the failure to require a presentence investigation we must reverse. (See Andrews v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 309 So. 2d 576, opinion filed March 20, 1975, and the cases therein cited)
The learned trial judge held that F.S. 921.23, insofar as it is in conflict with Rule 3.710 RCrP is unconstitutional and therefore not controlling. In so holding he was eminently correct. (Johnson v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 308 So. 2d 127, opinion filed February 25, 1975) However the cited rule is applicable and is mandatory. (Mitchum v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 292 So. 2d 620 and Andrews v. State, supra) It is apparent from the record that the learned trial judge misunderstood or misapplied that rule.
The record clearly reveals that the appellant has a prior “rap sheet” which reveals that he has at least four prior criminal convictions. The record does not reveal any prior felony convictions. Following a quotation of Rule 3.710 RCrP the trial judge said:
“Under the rule there is no obligation on the court to order a presentence investigation in those cases where the defendant does not have prior felony convictions or convictions and in reviewing the record in this case, it is apparent to the court that this defendant does not have prior felony convictions. And I don’t believe there is any question concerning that, is there ?”
The State urges that the record reveals an admission on the part of the appellant’s counsel that appellant had prior felony convictions, citing that portion of the record which reveals appellant’s counsel to have stated “Your Honor, Mr. Buckles has just been convicted of a felony in the third degree.” It is apparent though upon a reading of the record that appellant’s counsel was there referring to the conviction giving rise to this appeal and not a prior conviction.
The proper circumstances for application of the rule are thoroughly discussed in the several cases above cited and no useful purpose will be served by repeating those here.
Accordingly, the judgment here appealed is affirmed but this cause is remanded for determination as to whether appellant has a prior felony conviction or in the alternative for vacation of the sentence here appealed and a presentence investigation pursuant to Rule 3.710 RCrP followed by further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ira Johnson v. State, 308 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Mitchum v. State, 292 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Andrews v. State, 309 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)