LEO R. MCCORMACK, 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.
Leo McCormack appealed a sentencing for second-degree murder, challenging the trial judge's refusal to disclose the confidential portion of the presentence investigation report. The court affirmed, finding that the withheld materials were not mandatory-disclosure "factual material" under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.713.
The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to disclose the confidential portion of the presentence investigation report. The appellate court found that while the Probation and Parole Commission should have included all of McCormack's statement to the parole supervisor in the non-confidential portion if he requested it, neither that statement nor other confidential materials constituted "factual material" requiring mandatory disclosure under Rule 3.713.
[1] A trial judge has discretion to disclose any or all of the contents of a presentence investigation report to the parties prior to sentencing.
[2] A trial judge must disclose all factual material, including but not limited to a defendant's education, prior occupation, prior arrests, prior convictions, and military s…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The trial judge shall disclose all factual material, including but not limited to the defendant's education, prior occupation, prior arrests, prior convictions, military service and the like, to the defendant and the State a reasonable time prior to sentencing.”
Establishes the mandatory disclosure requirement under Rule 3.713(b) for certain categories of factual material
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCormack was indicted for first-degree murder and pled guilty to second-degree murder. At sentencing, he moved to require disclosure of the confident…
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 Sentencing Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant was indicted for first degree murder and pled guilty to second degree murder. At sentencing he moved for a continuance and asked that the confidential portion of the presentence 'investigation report of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission be disclosed to him. This motion was based upon his stated belief that important factual background was either omitted entirely from the report or was improperly included in the confidential portion thereof.
Rule 3.713, F.R.Cr.P., states as follows:
“(a) The trial judge may disclose any of the contents of the presentence investigation to the parties prior to sentencing. Any information so disclosed to one party shall be disclosed to the opposing party.
(b) The trial judge shall disclose all factual material, including but not limited to the defendant’s education, prior occupation, prior arrests, prior convictions, military service and the like, to the defendant and the State a reasonable time prior to sentencing. If any physical or mental evaluations of the defendant have been made and are to be considered for the purposes of sentencing or release, such reports shall be disclosed to counsel for both parties.
(c) Upon motion of the defendant or the prosecutor or on its own motion, the sentencing Court may order the defendant to submit to a mental or physical examination which would be relevant to the sentencing decision. Copies of such examination or any other examination to be considered for the purpose of sentencing shall be disclosed to counsel for the parties subject to the limitation of Rule 1.713(b).”
The intent of the foregoing rule is further clarified by the Committee Note which states as follows:
“This rule represents a compromise between the philosophy that presentence investigations should be fully disclosed to a defendant and the objection that such disclosure would dry up sources of confidential information and render such report virtually useless, (a) gives the trial judge discretion to disclose any or all of the report to the parties, (b) makes mandatory the disclosure of factual and physical and mental evaluation material only. In this way, it is left to the discretion of the trial judge to disclose to a defendant or his counsel any other evaluative material. The Judicial discretion should amply protect the confidentiality of those sources who do not wish to be disclosed, while the availability of all factual material to the defendant will permit him to discover and make known to the sentencing court any errors which may appear in the report.”
At sentencing the trial judge indicated that appellant’s statement of his version of the shooting, which he made to the probation supervisor, was included in the confidential portion of the report and that other background information was included. In mitigation before sentence, the trial court heard appellant and a number of witnesses presented by him. The only question raised on this appeal is whether or not the trial judge committed error in not releasing the confidential part of the report to the appellant.
Pursuant to a previous order entered by this court, we have examined the presen-tence investigation report in camera in its entirety. While we consider that the Florida Probation and Parole Commission should have included in the non-confidential portion of its report all of the statement of appellant made to the parole supervisor had appellant indicated that he desired the release of same, we cannot say that such statement and the other material contained in the confidential portion of the report constituted factual material within the contemplation of Rule 3.713, F.R.Cr.P. We, therefore, find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in not releasing same.
AFFIRMED.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. State, 342 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…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 this is not done an unfair burden is placed on the trial j…
-
Levin v. State, 348 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…on of a PSI report which is not factual or which contains no physical or mental evaluation material is discretionary. This court in Campbell v. State, 342 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and the First District Court of Appeal in McCormack v. State, 332 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), have so construed that rule. [*1190] The Supreme Court of the United States in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977), in a plurality decision, stated that due process required revelation to a def…
-
McCLENDON v. State, 589 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ncern, is the possibility that the PSI may contain confidential portions which should not be revealed even to counsel of record. This court, however, can examine confidential portions of the PSI if necessary for appellate review. McCormack v. State, 332 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In such cases there would be two different versions of the PSI, the complete report to be held in the files of the trial and/or reviewing courts, and an edited version to be provided to the parties. Where there are two versions…