ROBERT ROY CAMPBELL, 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.
Campbell appeals his breaking and entering sentence, challenging the trial court's refusal to disclose the confidential portion of the presentence investigation. The court held that while the confidential portion need not be fully disclosed, the defendant was entitled to receive all factual material from the presentence investigation a reasonable time before sentencing, and remanded for a new sentencing hearing because this requirement was not met.
The trial court properly declined to release the entire confidential portion of the presentence investigation, but the defendant was entitled to receive all factual material contained in the presentence investigation a reasonable time prior to sentencing. Providing such information only at the sentencing hearing itself does not satisfy this requirement.
[1] A defendant must be furnished all factual material in the presentence investigation a reasonable time prior to sentencing.
[2] A trial court is not required to disclose the confidential portion of a presentence investigation report to the defendant.
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“Rule 3.713, F.R.C.P. provides that the defendant be furnished all factual material in the presentence investigation a reasonable time prior to sentencing.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that defendants must receive all factual material from the presentence investigation before sentencing, not at the hearing itself.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCampbell was convicted of breaking and entering and sentenced by the trial court. At sentencing, the trial judge disclosed certain factual information…
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.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
This is an appeal from a sentence entered after a conviction and sentence for breaking and entering. The defendant appeals, asserting as error the trial court’s refusal to allow disclosure of the confidential portion of the presentence investigation. We find that the trial judge was correct in declining to release the confidential portion of the report but we remand for a new sentencing hearing on the basis that the defendant was not provided all the factual material contained in the presentence investigation pri-or to sentencing.
Rule 3.713, F.R.C.P. provides that the defendant be furnished all factual material in the presentence investigation a reasonable time prior to sentencing. At the sentencing hearing the trial court disclosed to the defendant’s counsel certain factual information contained in the confidential portion of the presentence investigation but not in the non-confidential portion, and gave the defendant an opportunity to explain such information if he wished. The defendant declined to explain at the sentencing, claiming 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 this is not done an unfair burden is placed on the trial judge to determine before sentencing whether there is any factual material in the confidential portion of the investigation that must be disclosed to the defendant.
This cause is hereby remanded for resentencing with directions that the trial court again review the confidential portion of the presentence investigation and thereafter disclose to the defendant, a reasonable time prior to sentencing, any factual material contained therein not found in the non-confidential portion.
ALDERMAN and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Batch v. State, 405 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…ation contained in a presentence investigation report (PSI) must be disclosed to a defendant a reasonable time prior to sentencing. Cunningham v. State, 349 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 362 So. 2d 1052 (Fla.1978); Campbell v. State, 342 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Dickens v. State, 368 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Although we have not been provided with a copy of the PSI in this case, the record discloses that the court refused defense counsel’s motion to review what, if any, factual i…
-
Nelson v. State, 396 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1981)…therein, thus violating Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.713(b). The district court’s affirmance, Nelson v. State, 373 So. 2d 468 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), created conflict with Bronson v. State, 345 So. 2d 872 (Fla.2d DCA 1977), and Campbell v. State, 342 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Therefore, we have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(bX3), Fla.Const. On the merits, I would hold that the trial judge should have furnished the entire pre-sentence investigation report to the petitioner. The disclosure of all factual…
-
Levin v. State, 348 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)….P. 3.713 and the Committee Note thereunder make it clear that revelation of the confidential portion 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…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Guglielmo v. State, 318 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- McCORMACK v. State, 332 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)