Opinion ID: 2375382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the trial court err in failing to provide a presentence report?

Text: KRS 532.050 is as follows: (1) No court shall impose sentence for conviction of a felony, other than a capital offense, without first ordering a presentence investigation after conviction and giving due consideration to a written report of such investigation. (2) The report shall be prepared and presented by a probation officer and shall include an analysis of the defendant's history of delinquency or criminality, physical and mental condition, family situation and background, economic status, education, occupation, personal habits, and any other matters that the court directs to be included. . . . . (4) Before imposing sentence, the court shall advise the defendant or his counsel of the factual contents and conclusions of any presentence investigation or psychiatric examinations and afford a fair opportunity and a reasonable period of time, if the defendant so requests, to controvert them. The sources of confidential information need not, however, be disclosed. (emphasis added). It is clear from the record, and it is conceded by appellee, that no presentence report was ordered in this case by the trial court. Sentencing is an integral part of the criminal justice system. The General Assembly added the requirement of a presentence report so that the action of the trial judge, in passing sentence and entering judgment, could be intelligently made. The presence of an objective report is of great potential assistance to a judge as he ponders the fate of each defendant who comes before him for sentencing. We have stated that such sentencing procedure is mandatory. Brewer v. Commonwealth, Ky., 550 S.W.2d 474 (1977); Arnold v. Commonwealth, Ky., 573 S.W.2d 344 (1978). We, therefore, rule that it was error for the court to fail to order and consider a presentence report prior to his imposition of the sentence in this case. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, but the case is remanded with directions to vacate the judgment for purposes of resentencing in compliance with the provisions of KRS 532.050. All concur.