Opinion ID: 2543852
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Presentencing Investigation Report

Text: During the Spencer [11] hearing, Ault's counsel requested the preparation of a presentencing investigation report (PSI), which the trial judge denied. Ault argues that he was entitled to a PSI pursuant to Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343, 363 (Fla.2001), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.710. Under rule 3.710(b), [s]hould a defendant in a capital case choose not to challenge the death penalty and refuse to present mitigation evidence, the court shall refer the case to the Department of Corrections for the preparation of a presentence report. In Muhammad, the defendant discharged his penalty phase counsel during jury selection and subsequently refused to present any mitigating evidence during the penalty phase. The jury, after hearing only the State's evidence, recommended death. The trial judge followed the jury's recommendation. See Muhammad, 782 So.2d at 350-51. On direct appeal, we vacated Muhammad's death sentence and remanded for resentencing. However, concerned that Muhammad might again refuse to present mitigation evidence during the new sentencing proceedings, we considered what prospective procedures should apply on resentencing. Id. at 363. We stated as follows: In the past, we have encouraged trial courts to order the preparation of a PSI to determine the existence of mitigating circumstances in at least those cases in which the defendant essentially is not challenging the imposition of the death penalty. Farr v. State, 656 So.2d 448, 450 (Fla.1995) ( Farr II ); see Allen v. State, 662 So.2d 323, 330 (Fla.1995). Having continued to struggle with how to ensure reliability, fairness, and uniformity in the imposition of the death penalty in these rare cases where the defendant waives mitigation, we have now concluded that the better policy will be to require the preparation of a PSI in every case where the defendant is not challenging the imposition of the death penalty and refuses to present mitigation evidence. Id. (emphasis added). A PSI was not required in this case. Unlike Muhammad, Ault was represented by counsel, challenged the imposition of the death penalty, and presented mitigating evidence during the penalty phase. [12] Accordingly, while the trial court had the option of ordering a PSI under rule 3.710(a) (In all cases in which the court has discretion as to what sentence may be imposed, the court may refer the case to the Department of Corrections for investigation and recommendation.), nothing in Muhammad or in rule 3.710(b) required it to do so. Ault's counsel in fact acknowledged at the Spencer hearing that a PSI was not required. We affirm the trial court's decision.