JOHN ARTHUR THOMAS, 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.
Thomas was convicted of robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment with a three-year minimum under Florida's mandatory sentencing statute. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that while Section 775.087 prohibits suspension, deferment, or withholding of sentence, it does not prohibit the trial court from ordering a presentence investigation report before imposing sentence.
Section 775.087 does not prohibit a presentence investigation report. The statute only prohibits suspension, deferment, or withholding of adjudication or sentence itself, not the investigative process that precedes sentencing. A sentencing judge must order a presentence investigation report in every felony case and consider it before imposing sentence.
[1] A statute mandating that a court proceed to pronounce sentence notwithstanding provisions for deferment, suspension, or withholding of adjudication or sentence does not p…
[2] The purpose of a presentence investigation report is to assist the sentencing judge in determining a fair sentence for the defendant and society.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“That statute says the court cannot suspend, defer or withhold adjudication or sentence, it does not say the court cannot order a presen-tence investigation before judgment or sentence is passed.”
The court's primary holding distinguishing between prohibiting sentence suspension/deferment and prohibiting presentence investigations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas was convicted of robbery where a gun was used. At sentencing, the trial judge interpreted Section 775.087 as prohibiting any presentence invest…
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 Deferred Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of three years since a gun was used. Section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1975). At the time of sentencing the trial judge said:
“Well, the Court would like to have discretion to order such a presentence investigation report, but the language of Section 775.087 specifically provides that the Court shall proceed, notwithstanding the provision of Chapter 948.01 or Section 948.01 of the Florida Statutes. 948.01 is that section of the Florida Statutes which provides for the ordering of a presentence investigation. So, the only conclusion which this Court can arrive at is that it is the intention of the Legislature that the Court proceed to pronounce sentence at this time in such a case.” (T-241-242)
This interpretation of Section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1975) is erroneous. That statute says the court cannot suspend, defer or withhold adjudication or sentence, it does not say the court cannot order a presen-tence investigation before judgment or sentence is passed. To send a man to prison for life without any consideration whatsoever of his background except that he was found guilty of robbery is not in the best interests of society.
Section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1975) says no deferment, suspension or withholding of adjudication or sentence. Deferred sentencing is not permitted. Helton v. State, 106 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1958); State v. Bateh, 110 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1959); McMillan v. State, 321 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2 DCA 1975); Jones v. State, 336 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1 DCA 1976); State v. Sweetman, 302 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 4 DCA 1974). See also Cunningham v. State, 349 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4 DCA 1977).1 A suspended sentence is only available if a person is placed on probation. Section 948.-01(4) and (5) (1975) Helton v. State, supra. Withholding sentence is referred to in Section 948.01(3) and (4) (1975) and appears to be defined interchangeably with suspended sentence. Withholding and suspension of adjudication and sentence means the court declines to convict (adjudicate guilty) the defendant or fine or imprison him until probation is tried. Withholding or suspending adjudication or sentence in a felony case can only be done when the defendant is put on probation. Section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes (1975). If the defendant successfully completes his probation he is not a convicted person but if the probation is violated the court may then adjudicate and sentence.
The purpose of a presentence investigation is to assist the sentencing judge in determining a fair sentence for the defendant and society. Section 948.01(2), Florida Statutes (1975) says the sentencing judge shall order a presentence investigation report in every felony case. Section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1975) says adjudication and sentence shall not be suspended, deferred or withheld but it does not say the sentencing judge should blindly proceed to sentence without the most valuable, if not necessary, assistance of a presentence investigation report. The judgment is affirmed and the sentence reversed and this cause remanded for resentencing after a full and complete pre-sentence investigation is made and the report considered by the sentencing judge prior to resentencing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, J., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L., Associate Judge, concur. . See also the interesting article, Pobjecky, Sentencing Options, 51 Fla.Bar J., No. 1 (1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Raulerson v. State, 763 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2000)…efendant on probation, the First District' concluded: [*290] Pursuant to this statutory scheme, a defendant who has adjudication of guilt withheld and successfully completes the term of probation imposed “is not a convicted person.” Thomas v. State, 356 So. 2d 846, 847 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 835 (Fla.1978). However, if probation is revoked, the defendant must be adjudicated guilty of the charged offense. § 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). Applying the foregoing statutory scheme to the issue at…
-
State v. Gloster, 703 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ly imposed before placing the probationer ... on probation_ Pursuant to this statutory scheme, a defendant who has adjudication of guilt withheld and successfully completes the term of probation imposed “is not a convicted person.” Thomas v. State, 356 So. 2d 846, 847 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 835 (Fla,1978). However, if probation is revoked, the defendant must be adjudicated guilty of the charged offense. § 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). Applying the foregoing statutory scheme to the issue at…
-
State v. McFADDEN, 772 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2000)…o the statutory scheme "a defendant who has adjudication of guilt withheld and successfully completes the term of probation imposed is ‘not a convicted person.' ” Slate v. Gloster, 703 So. 2d 1174, 1176 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1997) (quoting Thomas v. State, 356 So. 2d 846, 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)). However, if probation is revoked, the defendant must be adjudicated guilty of the charged offense. See § 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1997).…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mussa C. Bateh, 110 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1959)
- Helton v. State, 106 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1958)
- State v. Sweetman, 302 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Payton v. State, 336 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Cunningham v. State, 349 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- In the Interest of M. L., 349 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- McMILLAN v. State, 321 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)