LAWRENCE J. DONLYUK AND JAMES W. DONLYUK, APPELLANTS,
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.
This case addresses whether pre-sentence investigation reports must be in writing under Florida's Criminal Procedure Rules. The court held that such reports must be in writing, vacating the defendants' 20-year sentences for armed robbery and directing that written pre-sentence reports be obtained before re-sentencing.
Pre-sentence investigation reports contemplated by the applicable Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure must be in writing. The court reasoned that although the rules do not explicitly specify a written requirement, the purpose and spirit of the rules, particularly those governing disclosure and review of such reports, require written reports.
[1] Pre-sentence investigation reports contemplated by the rules of criminal procedure must be in writing.
[2] The purpose and spirit of rules governing pre-sentence investigation reports necessitate that such reports be in writing to allow for their disclosure to interested parti…
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“If the report be not in writing, then the provisions of Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.712(b), (c) and (d), authorizing the court to make the report available to persons or agencies having a legitimate professional interest in the information contained in the report, making the report available to reviewing courts, and requiring the judge to make available all factual material contained therein to the Defendant and the State a reasonable time before imposing sentence, would have no practical field of operation.”
The court's rationale for why pre-sentence reports must be written—the rules governing disclosure and review of reports presuppose written reports
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo defendants, each with no prior felony convictions, pleaded guilty to armed robbery. The trial court ordered pre-sentence investigation reports on …
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.
MELVIN, WOODROW M., Sr., Associate Judge.
The parties to this appeal will be designated as they were in the trial court.
The Defendants, each with no prior felony conviction, entered their plea of guilty to the offense of armed robbery. Upon request of counsel, the trial court, on January 7, 1974, ordered a pre-sentence investigation report for each of them. Thereafter, on January 11, 1974, the trial court, advising that the court had received a verbal pre-sentence investigation report, proceeded to sentence each Defendant to the State prison for a period of twenty years.
The single question for determination here is whether, under the provisions and purposes of Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.710, 3.712 and 3.713 relating to pre-sen-tence investigation reports, such reports are required to be in writing.
Although the rules do not specify that such reports shall be in writing, we find such to be the purpose and spirit of the rules. If the report be not in writing, then the provisions of Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.712(b), (c) and (d), authorizing the court to make the report available to persons or agencies having a legitimate professional interest in the information contained in the report, making the report available to reviewing courts, and requiring the judge to make available all factual material contained therein to the Defendant and the State a reasonable time before imposing sentence, would have no practical field of operation. We, therefore, hold that pre-sentence reports contemplated by the applicable rules must be in writing.
We reverse with direction that the sentence imposed on each Defendant be vacated and a pre-sentence written report be requested by the Court.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and BARK-DULL, THOMAS H., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. C. H. v. State, 404 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…n or agency, (e. s.) The appellant further contends that our court’s interpretations of the presentence investigation (PSI) rules, Rules 3.712 and 3.713, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, are applicable by analogy. For example, Donlyuk v. State, 330 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), construed Rules 3.712 and 3.713 as requiring that relevant information comprising a presentence investigation report be in written form and available to the defendant at a reasonable time before sentencing. Additionally, Dic…