Opinion ID: 853669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Probation Officer's Presentence Report

Text: Under Ind.Code § 35-38-1-8(a), a defendant convicted of a felony may not be sentenced before a written pre-sentence report is prepared by a probation officer and considered by the sentencing court. In preparing his report, the probation officer contacted Emerson to attempt an interview, but Emerson demanded legal representation before consenting to the interview. The probation officer then contacted Emerson's attorney for assistance. Although it is unclear whether the attorney instructed Emerson to comply, the probation officer's second attempt to interview Emerson was also denied. The probation officer included the following in his pre-sentence report: The defendant was also uncooperative in regards to the Presentence Investigation. This Officer attempted to interview the defendant on two occasions. The defendant refused to answer any questions. He indicated that he did not care the Presentence Investigation was a Court-ordered report. Due to the defendant's noncompliance with the Presentence Investigation, his extensive criminal history, and the seriousness of the instant offense, this Officer feels the defendant is appropriate for a lengthy sentence to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction. (R. at 119.) Emerson asserts that his refusal to be interviewed had a negative impact on the preparation of the report, and that because of this prejudicial impact, he was denied an unbiased report that provided a balanced view of his social history. The State responds by emphasizing that Emerson had ample opportunity to participate in the report's compilation and refute any inaccuracies or prejudicial remarks found therein. While Emerson asserted a right to counsel during his pre-sentence investigation, this Court has held that no such right exists. Lang v. State, 461 N.E.2d 1110, 1115-16 (Ind.1984). Emerson is correct in stating that the pre-sentence report should consist of neutral and professional observations rather than personal opinions, although the probation officer is given wide discretion to include in the pre-sentence report any matters deemed relevant to determining a sentence. Allen v. State, 720 N.E.2d 707, 714 (Ind.1999). It was not error for the probation officer to consider the whole history of Emerson's encounters with the criminal justice system. See id. at 715. One of these was Emerson's approach to the presentence report. Emerson's primary concern is the prejudicial effect his refusal to participate had on the probation officer's recommendation of a lengthy sentence. Of course, Emerson had a full opportunity to testify at the sentencing hearing. Before Emerson testified at the hearing, defense counsel told the court some of the information that was not available to the probation officer will be made available through testimony here today. (R. at 344.) Both Emerson and his mother testified during the sentencing hearing about his family/personal background. (R. at 344-49, 350-54.) This clearly represented an opportunity to refute any possible inaccuracies caused by his refusal to be interviewed previously. Most importantly for purposes of this appeal, the trial court did not base the sentence on Emerson's refusal to be interviewed. Rather, it considered the risk the Defendant would commit another crime, the nature and circumstances of this crime, Defendant's prior criminal record, character and condition, as well as the input of the victim's family in this matter, and the Defendant's statement. (R. at 364.) The trial court listed the reasons for imposing the sentence and took into account the facts Emerson claimed were omitted from the pre-sentence report. (Id.) We see no justification for reversal or re-sentencing because of the pre-sentence report. The probation officer did the best he could under the circumstances.