STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
STEPHEN W. PURWIN, RESPONDENT
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.
Where there are multiple capital felony convictions, the trial court may, but is not required to, order a presentence investigation report before sentencing a defendant, even if the death penalty is unavailable and the defendant is a first felony offender.
[1] In capital felony cases, a trial court has discretion but not a mandatory duty to order a presentence investigation report under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.710,…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“where there are multiple capital felony convictions, the trial court may, but is not required to, order a presentence investigation report before sentencing a defendant. This is true even in those cases where the death penalty is not available as a sentence alternative and where the defendant is a first felony offender.”
Statement of the court's holding on the scope of trial court discretion
Purwin was convicted of three counts of murder in the first degree and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences. The trial court did not order a …
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 Presentence Investigation Report cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the decision of the District Court, Fifth District, in Purwin v. State, reported at 385 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The district court reversed the trial court’s imposition of sentence upon the ground that it should have ordered and considered a presentenee investigation report before sentencing Purwin to three consecutive life sentences for three convictions of murder in the first degree. We find that this decision expressly and directly conflicts with our decisions in Thompson v. State, 389 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1980); Jackson v. State, 366 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 177, 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); Hargrave v. State, 366 So. 2d 1 (1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 919, 100 S.Ct. 239, 62 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979); and Thompson v. State, 328 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1976).
We adhere to our previous decisions and find that the trial court was not required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.710 to order a presentenee investigation report. We hold that where there are multiple capital felony convictions, the trial court may, but is not required to, order a presentence investigation report before sentencing a defendant. This is true even in those eases where the death penalty is not available as a sentence alternative and where the defendant is a first felony offender. The decision of the district court is therefore quashed in part, and this cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the sentences imposed by the trial court.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
McDONALD, Justice,
dissenting:
I would recede from Thompson v. State, 328 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rose v. State, 461 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1984)…iscretionary in capital cases, and the failure of the trial court to order such report does not constitute reversible error. Harich v. State, 437 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 104 S.Ct. 1329, 79 L.Ed.2d 724 (1984); State v. Purwin, 405 So. 2d 970 (Fla.1981); Thompson v. State, 389 So. 2d 197 (Fla.1980). Regarding defendant’s argument that the court erred in not granting his second motion for continuance of his sentencing proceeding made on the day of trial, we hold that the trial court did…
-
Purwin v. State, 406 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Based upon the opinion and mandate of the Supreme Court in State v. Purwin, 405 So. 2d 970 (Fla.1981) we withdraw our previous mandate 385 So. 2d 165 and affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court. IT IS SO ORDERED. DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- LeDuc v. Florida, 444 U.S. 885 (U.S. 1979)
- Lenson Hargrave v. State, 366 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1978)
- Thompson v. State, 328 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1976)
- Jackson v. State, 366 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1978)
- Sherrill v. Jago, 444 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1979)
- Smith v. Perini, 444 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1979)
- In re Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 389 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1980)
- Thompson v. State, 389 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1980)
- Purwin v. State, 385 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)