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. No sentence or sentences other than probation or the statutorily required mandatory minimum may be imposed on any defendant found guilty of a first felony offense or found guilty of a felony while under the age of 18 years, until after such investigation has first been made and the recommendations of the Department of Corrections received and considered by the sentencing judge. The requirements of this subdivision are not applicable to a subsequent violation of probation proceeding.

Should 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. The report shall be comprehensive and should include information such as previous mental health problems (including hospitalizations), school records, and relevant family background.

1972 Adoption. The rule provides for the utilization of a presentence report as part of the sentencing process. While use of the report is discretionary in all cases, it is mandatory in two instances, the sentencing of a first felony offender and of a defendant under 18 years of age. Of course, no report is necessary where the specific sentence is mandatory, e.g., the sentence of death or life imprisonment in a verdict of first degree murder.

1988 Amendment. This amendment changes wording to conform with current responsibility of the Department of Corrections to prepare the presentence investigation and report.

2004 Amendment. The amendment adds subdivision (b). Section 948.015, Florida Statutes, is by its own terms inapplicable to those cases described in this new subdivision. Nonetheless, subdivision (b) requires a report that is “comprehensive.” Accordingly, the report should include, if reasonably available, in addition to those matters specifically listed in Muhammad v. State, 782 So. 2d 343, 363 (Fla. 2000), a description of the status of all of the charges in the indictment as well as any other pending offenses; the defendant’s medical history; and those matters listed in sections 948.015 (3)–(8) and (13), Florida Statutes. The Department of Corrections should not recommend a sentence.

2018 Amendment. The amendment modifies subdivision (a). The rule makes clear that a report is not required prior to sentencing in violation of probation proceedings following the ruling in Barber v. State, 293 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1974).

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the sentencing court shall not authorize the commencement of the presentence investigation until there has been a finding of guilt.

(b) The sentencing court may authorize the commencement of the presentence investigation prior to finding of guilt if:

(1) the defendant has consented to such action; and

(2) nothing disclosed by the presentence investigation comes to the attention of the prosecution, the court, or the jury prior to an adjudication of guilt. Upon motion of the defense and prosecution, the court may examine the presentence investigation prior to the entry of a plea.

1972 Adoption. The rule permits presentence investigations to be initiated prior to finding of guilt. Its purpose is to reduce unwarranted jail time by a defendant who expects to plead guilty and who may well merit probation or commitment to facilities other than prison.

The presentence investigation shall not be a public record and shall be available only to the following persons under the following stated conditions:

(a) To the sentencing court to assist it in determining an appropriate sentence.

(b) To persons or agencies having a legitimate professional interest in the information that it would contain.

(c) To reviewing courts if relevant to an issue on which an appeal has been taken.

(d) To the parties as rule 3.713 provides.

1972 Amendment. Provides for disclosure of the report to the trial court, appropriate agencies of the state, and appellate courts, if needed.

(a) The trial judge may disclose any of the contents of the presentence investigation to the parties prior to sentencing. Any information so disclosed to one party shall be disclosed to the opposing party.

(b) The trial judge shall disclose all factual material, including but not limited to the defendant’s education, prior occupation, prior arrests, prior convictions, military service, and the like, to the defendant and the state a reasonable time prior to sentencing. If any physical or mental evaluations of the defendant have been made and are to be considered for the purposes of sentencing or release, such reports shall be disclosed to counsel for both parties.

(c) On motion of the defendant or the prosecutor or on its own motion, the sentencing court may order the defendant to submit to a mental or physical examination that would be relevant to the sentencing decision. Copies of the examination or any other examination to be considered for the purpose of sentencing shall be disclosed to counsel for the parties subject to the limitation of rule 3.713(b).

1972 Adoption. This rule represents a compromise between the philosophy that presentence investigations should be fully disclosed to a defendant and the objection that such disclosure would dry up sources of confidential information and render such report virtually useless. (a) gives the trial judge discretion to disclose any or all of the report to the parties. (b) makes mandatory the disclosure of factual and physical and mental evaluation material only. In this way, it is left to the discretion of the trial judge to disclose to a defendant or defendant’s counsel any other evaluative material. The judicial discretion should amply protect the confidentiality of those sources who do not wish to be disclosed, while the availability of all factual material will permit the defendant to discover and make known to the sentencing court any errors that may appear in the report.