Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1992

State v. Stevens

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided December 15, 1992 · Cope, Gersten, Schwartz

610 So. 2d 90; 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12523; 1992 WL 367332 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Opinion of the Court

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

. The court may, however, in its discretion choose to obtain and consider a presentence investigation in making that determination.

. Alternatively, assuming that the appeal should have been a petition for certiorari, the petition is denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.