Case ID: so2d_610/html/0090-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Nathaniel STEVENS, Appellee.
    No. 92-539.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Dec. 15, 1992.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joan L. Greenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Richard C. Hutchison, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.
   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.

Affirmed. 
      
      . 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.