JOHN JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, 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 appellate court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering and grand larceny. The appellant argued the trial court erred by not providing the presentence investigation report a reasonable time before sentencing.
No, the trial court did not err. Although providing the report on the day of sentencing is not ideal, the appellant was satisfied to proceed after reviewing it and did not request a deferral.
[1] A defendant's right to review a presentence investigation report a reasonable time before sentencing is waived if the defendant, after receiving the report on the day of…
[2] Failure to provide a defendant with a copy of the presentence investigation report a reasonable time before sentencing does not constitute reversible error when the defen…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“While we do not consider that the day of sentencing is a reasonable time prior to sentencing for the material to be disclosed, it appears from the record in this case that appellant was satisfied to proceed with sentencing after reading the report.”
Explains the court's view on the timing of the report disclosure and the appellant's subsequent actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. At sentencing, his attorney objected to no…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant was convicted on one count of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and one count of grand larceny. He appeals from the judgments and sentences contending that the trial court erred in not providing him with a copy of the factual, physical and/or mental evaluations contained in the presentence investigation report a reasonable time before sentencing as required by Rule 3.-713(b) F.R.Cr.P. When appellant came before the court for sentencing, he was asked by the court, “Do you or anyone in your behalf have legal cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced?” In response to that question, appellant’s attorney objected on the grounds that he had not been furnished a copy of the presen-tence investigation. The court then furnished him with a copy of the presentence investigation and declared a recess for appellant and his attorney to go over it. Following the recess, the court again asked the question, “Do you or anyone in your behalf have any legal cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced ?” to which appellant’s attorney answered, “None advanced at this time, your honor.” The aforesaid rule states that the material required to be disclosed to the defendant and the state shall be disclosed “a reasonable time prior to sentencing.” While we do not consider that the day of sentencing is a reasonable time prior to sentencing for the material to be disclosed, it appears from the record in this case that appellant was satisfied to proceed with sentencing after reading the report. Had appellant then desired additional time, he could have requested that sentencing be deferred; but he did not do so — his words indicated that he was ready to proceed. We, therefore, find no error. We have considered appellant’s two additional points raised in this appeal but find them to be without merit. See Wilson v. State, Fla., 304 So. 2d 119 (1974); Bunch v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 303 So. 2d 705 (1974); and Estevez v. State, Fla., 313 So. 2d 692 (1975).
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pope v. Louie L. Wainwright, 496 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1986)…fulness of the review had, the petitioner asks us to announce a blanket rule that three hours can never be considered a meaningful opportunity to review and evaluate a presen-tencing report in preparation for rebuttal. see, e.g., Guglielmo v. State, 318 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (day of trial not reasonable time prior to sentencing for material to be disclosed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.713). In determining whether the three-hour review was sufficient to ensure a meaningful response to t…
-
Golden v. State, 509 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…] the guidelines. § 921.001(4)(a), Fla.Stat. (1983). Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in allowing him only ten minutes during the sentencing hearing in which to read the presentence investigation report, citing Guglielmo v. State, 318 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Appellant’s counsel apparently received the presentence investigation only a few hours before the sentencing hearing, and counsel informed the court at the sentencing that appellant had not yet had time to read the report. The c…
-
Campbell v. State, 342 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…ming surprise and an inadequate opportunity to respond. Because the information disclosed may be characterized as factual material we find that the defendant was entitled to such information a reasonable time prior to sentencing. Guglielmo v. State, 318 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); McCormack v. State, 332 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). This problem could have been avoided had the Parole and Probation Commission included the factual information involved in the non-confidential portion of the report. If th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ciro Estevez v. State, 313 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1975)
- Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974)
- Bunch v. State, 303 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)