State v. Stevens

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Stevens

610 So. 2d 90, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12523, 1992 WL 367332

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1992

DocketNo. 92-539

StatusPublished

This text of 610 So. 2d 90 (State v. Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Stevens, 610 So. 2d 90, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12523, 1992 WL 367332 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question presented is whether the trial court must consider a presentence investigation prior to deciding that imposition of a habitual offender sentence “is not necessary for the protection of the public....” § 775.084(4)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991).

Under the statute, “[t]he court shall obtain and consider a presentence investigation prior to the imposition of a sentence as a habitual felony offender or a habitual violent felony offender.” Id. § 775.-084(3)(a) (emphasis added). However, “[i]f the court decides that imposition of sentence is not necessary for the protection of the public, sentence shall be imposed without regard to this section [the habitual offender statute].” Id. § 775.084(4)(c). As written, the statute does not require obtaining or considering a presentence investigation as a prerequisite to making the latter determination.¹

Affirmed.²

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The question presented is whether the trial court must consider a presentence investigation prior to deciding that imposition of a habitual offender sentence “is not necessary for the protection of the public....” § 775.084(4)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991).

Under the statute, “[t]he court shall obtain and consider a presentence investigation prior to the imposition of a sentence as a habitual felony offender or a habitual violent felony offender.” Id. § 775.-084(3)(a) (emphasis added). However, “[i]f the court decides that imposition of sentence is not necessary for the protection of the public, sentence shall be imposed without regard to this section [the habitual offender statute].” Id. § 775.084(4)(c). As written, the statute does not require obtaining or considering a presentence investigation as a prerequisite to making the latter determination.¹

Affirmed.²

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 So. 2d 90, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12523, 1992 WL 367332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stevens-fladistctapp-1992.