ARTHUR SLINGER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court must order and consider a presentence investigation report before sentencing a defendant to incarceration on first felony offenses, even when those offenses result from a retrial following reversal and vacation of prior convictions. The trial court's refusal to order a PSI was reversible error, and the error was not harmless because the record did not show the court considered or reviewed any PSI.
[1] Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.710(a) mandates that a presentence investigation report must be ordered and considered by the trial court before imposing a sentence oth…
[2] When a defendant's initial felony convictions are reversed and vacated on appeal and the defendant is retried and reconvicted of the same offenses, the retrial conviction…
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“[N]o sentence or sentences other than probation shall be imposed on any defendant found guilty of a first felony offense . . . until after such investigation has first been made and the recommendations of the Department of Corrections considered by the sentencing judge.”
This establishes the mandatory requirement under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.710(a) that a PSI must be ordered and considered before sentencing a first felony offender to incarceration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArthur Slinger was convicted of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation at trial and sentenced after a PSI was prepared. On appeal, the conv…
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 Lewd Or Lascivious Molestation cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ARTHUR SLINGER,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-3829
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. ________________________________/
Opinion filed April 18, 2019
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, Brittany N. O'Neil, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defenders, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
GROSSHANS, J.
Arthur Slinger (the defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation. We affirm the judgment, but we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing. At the conclusion of the defendant’s initial trial, a jury found him guilty of three crimes, including sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation, and the trial court
2 sentenced him after ordering and reviewing a presentence investigation report (PSI).1 The defendant appealed, and this court reversed his judgment and sentence and remanded for a new trial, thereby vacating all of his convictions. On remand, a jury again found him guilty of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation. After the verdict was rendered, the defendant requested a new PSI. Upon consideration, the trial court responded: Okay. We’re going to set a sentencing date. It’s one of -- this is kind of a hybrid, there was a -- just so you know now, there was a prior trial some several years ago. And . . . it had to come back for legal reasons. And I -- I’ve retried the case, as it were, he’[s] been previously convicted. So, for the last three years, he’s been in custody.
So, a PSI is a book report about a person’s life. It’s reserved for people who have no prior or scorable prior felony offenses or for . . . some persons who are habitual felony offenders who have awful records. They can get a PSI. In this situation, we’re not going to order a new PSI.
Prior to the sentencing hearing, the court reiterated that no PSI was ordered because “none was entitled.” The trial court then sentenced the defendant to thirty years in prison, and this appeal timely followed. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him without the benefit of a new PSI.2 We agree. Whether the trial court properly declined to order and consider a PSI involves a matter of law and is subject to de novo review. See Levandoski v. State, 245 So. 3d 643, 646 (Fla. 2018).
5D17-3829
I concur in the affirmance of Mr. Slinger’s conviction. An update to the presentence investigation (“PSI”) should have been ordered. However, because Mr. Slinger had been in prison since his first conviction, I believe the failure to update the PSI was harmless. Nonetheless, I agree that resentencing is appropriate because there is no indication the trial judge considered the PSI.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alphonso Lucas v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Levandoski v. State, 245 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 2018)
- Peer v. State, 983 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)