Case Name: In re FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.710
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-09-07
Citations: 362 So. 2d 655
Docket Number: No. 49355-D
Parties: In re FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.710.
Judges: ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 362
Pages: 655–657

Head Matter:
In re FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.710.
No. 49355-D.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 7, 1978.
Ronald K. Cacciatore, Chairman, Executive Counsel, Criminal Law Section of The Florida Bar, Tampa, and John A. Weiss of The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Paul Morris and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defenders, Miami, Bruce J. Winick, Gen. Counsel, Coral Gables, Terry L. DeMeo, Staff Counsel, South Miami, and Raymond W. Russell, Fort Lauderdale, for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Craig S. Barnard and Jerry L. Schwarz, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, Tallahassee, and Andrew A. Graham, Rockledge, interested persons.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On November 30, 1977, the Court initiated this rulemaking proceeding to consider whether presentence investigation reports should be eliminated from the sentencing process in all capital cases, in light of the statutory scheme for sentencing set out in Section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1975). The Court invited comment by all interested parties on a proposed change to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.710 which would achieve that objective.
After receiving briefs from many interested parties, hearing oral argument, and considering both the policy issues and the practical implications of a possible rule change, we have concluded that presentence investigation reports should continue to be available as a discretionary sentencing tool for trial judges in capital cases, and that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.710 should remain unchanged. In so concluding, we have rejected alternatives to the present rule which were suggested by various counsel, such as mandating presentenee investigation reports in all capital cases, requiring their presentation to advisory sentencing juries as well as trial judges, and requiring them only at a defendant's request.
This rulemaking proceeding is hereby terminated.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., dissents with an opinion.
HATCHETT, J., dissents with an opinion.
. See, however, Hargrave v. State, Case No. 48,135 (Fla. opin. filed June 30, 1978), holding the second sentence of Rule 3.710, which mandates presentence investigation reports, inapplicable in capital cases.