PETER RINALDI, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Newly Discovered Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On March 15, 1973, Peter Rinaldi was charged by information with conspiracy to commit robbery and carrying a concealed weapon. He was tried by jury on May 9, 1973, found guilty, convicted and sentenced on both charges. On or about March 11, 1976, Rinaldi filed a motion for new trial pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P.' 3.850, alleging two grounds: newly discovered exculpatory evidence, and denial of pre-sentence investigation in violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.710. The motion for new trial was denied and this appeal ensued.
The record in this case reflects that Ri-naldi, through his privately retained counsel, expressly withdrew his request for a pre-sentence investigation in open court, and requested immediate sentencing. We hold that under these circumstances, a pre-sentence investigation can be waived. See Kurlin v. State, 302 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
The record further reflects that Rinaldi has failed to demonstrate grounds to reverse the trial court’s finding that the alleged exculpatory information was insufficient to warrant granting the motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the order denying motion for new trial is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chandler v. State, 366 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…3). The sixth point claims error because there was no presentence investigation. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.710. We hold that this rule is not applicable where the defendant specifically waives the investigation. See Rinaldi v. State, 343 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and Johns v. State, 330 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The defendants’ suggestion that the waiver was “forced” is without foundation on this record. Having considered each point presented and finding no reversible error, the ju…
-
Mitchell v. State, 381 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…. Harden v. State, 290 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Ussery v. State, 350 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); DeOca v. State, 326 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The receipt and consideration of the pre-sentence report can be waived. Rinaldi v. State, 343 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Under the circumstances shown here, there is no error of constitutional magnitude such as was found in Hicks v. State, 336 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Since the trial court’s alleged failure to receive and consider a pre-se…
-
Ebhohimen v. State, 553 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Mitchell v. State, 381 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Rinaldi v. State, 343 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
Authorities Cited
- Schubert v. State, 302 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Kurlin v. State, 302 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)