Amendments to 921.231

1. Norvil v. State

   191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016)   Cited 43 times

   In the present case, the record reflects that the sentencing judge ordered a presentencing investigation (PSI) report pursuant to § 921.231(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). The purpose of the PSI report is to provide the sentencing court with information that is helpful in determining the type of sentence that should be imposed. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.712(a). This report must include, inter alia, the offender's prior record of arrests and convictions. § 921.231(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). In other words, by definition, the arrests and convictions considered by a trial judge in sentencing occur “prior to the time of the primary offense,” and not subsequent to the primary offense. § 921.0021(5), Fla. Stat. (2010). Additionally, the terms “primary offense” and “prior record,” which are included in the CPC's sentencing principles, do not include a subsequent arrest and its related charges. See §§ 921.0021(4)(5), Fla. Stats. (2010).

   PAGE 409
2. Imbert v. State

   154 So. 3d 1174 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 11 times

   “The United States Supreme Court has held that it is not a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights to consider other relevant factors when determining an appropriate sentence.” Dowling v. State, 829 So.2d 368, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 556, 100 S.Ct. 1358, 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980); Williams, 337 U.S. at 246–52, 69 S.Ct. 1079). The Florida Legislature recognized a number of relevant factors in enacting section 921.231 of the Florida Statutes, which governs presentence investigation reports. See § 921.231, Fla. Stat. Subsection (1) lists the factors that should be included in a full presentence investigation report, including “the offender's prior record of arrests and convictions.” § 921.231( 1), Fla. Stat. Against this legislative backdrop, we determined that a sentencing court may consider a defendant's pending charges if they are related to the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced. See Whitehead v. State, 21 So.3d 157, 158–60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (trial court appropriately considered defendant's pending charge during sentencing because it involved the defendant's conduct toward minors and…

   PAGE 1176
3. Brown v. State

   225 So. 3d 947 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times

   In light of this holding, I would urge the Legislature to amend section 921.231(1), to include subsequent arrests and their related charges as permissible sentencing factors. As Justice Canady aptly noted in his well-reasoned dissent:

   PAGE 948
4. Cabriano v. State

   211 So. 3d 147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

   We reject appellant's argument that the trial judge was prohibited from considering incidents with his wife and stepdaughter at sentencing. Both incidents, in large part, were part of the evidence admitted at trial. The legislature has identified trial testimony and evidence as a proper sentencing consideration. Section 921.231, Florida Statutes (2013), permits a trial judge to request a presentence investigation report. Among other things, the full report "shall include" a "complete description of the situation surrounding the criminal activity with which the offender has been charged, including a synopsis of the trial transcript, if one has been made." § 921.231(1)(a).

   PAGE 149
5. Fox v. State

   281 So. 3d 498 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)

   In the present case, the record reflects that the sentencing judge ordered a presentencing investigation (PSI) report pursuant to § 921.231(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). The purpose of the PSI report is to provide the sentencing court with information that is helpful in determining the type of sentence that should be imposed. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.712(a). This report must include, inter alia , the offender's prior record of arrests and convictions . § 921.231(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). In other words, by definition, the arrests and convictions considered by a trial judge in sentencing occur "prior to the time of the primary offense," and not subsequent to the primary offense . § 921.0021(5), Fla. Stat. (2010). Additionally, the terms "primary offense" and "prior record," which are included in the CPC's sentencing principles, do not include a subsequent arrest and its related charges . See §§ 921.0021(4)(5), Fla. Stats. (2010).

   PAGE 499
6. Muhammad v. State

   782 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2001)   Cited 132 times

   In his pro se supplemental initial brief, Muhammad argues that: (1) his 1991 PSI was ordered in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.711; (2) section "921.231(1)(g)(I)," Florida Statutes (1995), is unconstitutional and violates Florida Statutes; (3) section "921.231(1)(A)(g)" is unconstitutionally vague; (4) Muhammad's right to privacy was violated when the State obtained his medical and family history to prepare the 1991 and 1996 PSIs; (5) the obtaining of Muhammad's Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services records and foster care records violated the law making these records confidential; (6) Muhammad's public defender may not raise issues on appeal regarding PSI reports; and (7) this Court may not consider PSI reports for the purpose of this appeal. We find these claims to be without merit.

   PAGE 351
7. Gorzynski v. State

   255 So. 3d 990 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

   See § 921.231, Fla. Stat. (2016). Mr. Gorzynski was ultimately convicted of the charges reflected in the booking reports.

   PAGE 992
8. Andrews v. State

   207 So. 3d 889 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

   The Norvil court's analysis is instructive to this issue. In Norvil , the Florida Supreme Court looked to section 921.231, Florida Statutes (2010), the statute outlining factors to be included in presentence investigation reports (PSIs), in determining which factors may appropriately be considered in sentencing a defendant. Norvil , 191 So.3d at 409. The statute instructs that the PSI shall include "[t]he residence history of the offender." § 921.231(1)(h), Fla. Stat. (2016).The wording of subsection 921.231(1)(h) is plain that residence history of the defendant was to be considered, not merely his residence at the time of the crime. Because PSIs are designed to "provide the sentencing court with information [regarding the offender] that is helpful in determining the type of sentence that should be imposed," Norvil , 191 So.3d at 409, and because the subsection uses the word "history," it seems that the subsection seeks information regarding whether the defendant has a stable domicile, not whether he traveled from another county to commit the crime.

   PAGE 891
9. Robertson v. State

   187 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2016)   Cited 5 times

   Section 921.231, Florida Statutes (2012), authorizes DOC to conduct presentence investigations and prepare reports upon referral from the circuit court in criminal cases under certain circumstances. Section 921.231(1)(o ) provides that the PSI should include “[a] recommendation as to disposition by the court” based on consideration of several factors. When a court refers a pending capital sentencing matter to DOC for a PSI under rule 3.710(b), the factors in section 921.231(1)(o ) do not apply. By their plain language, these factors have no bearing on the decision of whether to sentence a defendant to death or life imprisonment. The corrections officer who prepared the report followed the outline of the statute, including the requirement of subsection (1)(o ) calling for a recommended disposition. However, the sentencing order shows that while the court relied upon the PSI for information about Robertson's background, the officer's recommendation of a death sentence did not influence the judge's sentencing decision. Under the circumstances, the inclusion of a sentencing recommendation in the report does not render the sentencing order invalid.

   PAGE 1216
10. Davis v. State

    268 So. 3d 958 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    In Norvil v. State , the Florida Supreme Court adopted a "bright line rule for sentencing purposes: a trial court may not consider a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense." 191 So.3d 406, 410 (Fla. 2016). That bright-line rule is not at issue here, and its underlying rationale does not undermine our conclusion. The court concluded that the Criminal Punishment Code explicitly authorized consideration of "prior arrests" and thus implicitly precluded consideration of later arrests. Id. at 408-09. But the PSI provision referenced in Norvil authorizes consideration of, among many other things, "the offender's motivations and ambitions and an assessment of the offender's explanations for his or her criminal activity." § 921.231( 1)(l ), Fla. Stat. A defendant's motivations, ambitions, and explanations of conduct capture remorse or willingness to accept responsibility. And like many of the other PSI considerations geared toward seeing the whole picture—educational background, social history, medical history, environments to which the offender might return, treatment opportunities, vocational training opportunities, prior criminal…

    PAGE 964