Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 921.231 (2025)
Presentence investigation reports.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
921.231 Presentence investigation reports.—
(1) Any circuit court of the state, when the defendant in a criminal case has been found guilty or has entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty, may refer the case to the Department of Corrections for investigation and recommendation. Upon request of the court, it shall be the duty of the department to make either or both of the following reports in writing to the circuit court at a specified time prior to sentencing, depending upon the circumstances of the offender and the offense. The full report shall include:
(a) A complete description of the situation surrounding the criminal activity with which the offender has been charged, including a synopsis of the trial transcript, if one has been made; nature of the plea agreement including the number of counts waived, the pleas agreed upon, the sentence agreed upon, and additional terms of agreement; and, at the offender’s discretion, his or her version and explanation of the act.
(b) The offender’s sentencing status, including whether the offender is a first offender, habitual offender, or youthful offender or is currently on probation.
(c) The offender’s prior record of arrests and convictions.
(d) The offender’s educational background.
(e) The offender’s employment background, including any military record, his or her present employment status, and his or her occupational capabilities.
(f) The offender’s financial status, including total monthly income and estimated total debts.
(g) The social history of the offender, including his or her family relationships, marital status, interests, and related activities.
(h) The residence history of the offender.
(i) The offender’s medical history and, as appropriate, a psychological or psychiatric evaluation.
(j) Information about the environments to which the offender might return or to which the offender could be sent should a sentence of nonincarceration or community supervision be imposed by the court and consideration of the offender’s plan concerning employment supervision and treatment.
(k) Information about any resources available to assist the offender, such as:
1. Treatment centers.
2. Residential facilities.
3. Vocational training programs.
4. Special education programs.
5. Services that may preclude or supplement commitment to the department.
(l) The views of the person preparing the report as to the offender’s motivations and ambitions and an assessment of the offender’s explanations for his or her criminal activity.
(m) An explanation of the offender’s criminal record, if any, including his or her version and explanation of any previous offenses.
(n) A statement regarding the extent of the victim’s loss or injury.
(o) A recommendation as to disposition by the court. It shall be the duty of the department to make a written determination as to the reasons for its recommendation. The department shall include an evaluation of the following factors:
1. The appropriateness or inappropriateness of community facilities, programs, or services for treatment or supervision.
2. The ability or inability of the department to provide an adequate level of supervision for the offender in the community and a statement of what constitutes an adequate level of supervision.
3. The existence of other treatment modalities which the offender could use but which do not exist at present in the community.
If requested by the court, the department shall also provide to the court a summary report designed to expeditiously give the court information critical to its approval of any plea. The summary report shall include the information required by paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (j), (m), (n), and (o).
(2) In those instances in which a presentence investigation report has been previously compiled, the department may elect to complete a short-form report updating the above information.
(3) All information in the presentence investigation report should be factually presented and verified if reasonably possible by the preparer of the report. On examination at the sentencing hearing, the preparer of the report, if challenged on the issue of verification, shall bear the burden of explaining why it was not possible to verify the challenged information.
(4) The nonconfidential portion of the presentence investigation shall constitute the basic classification and evaluation document of the Department of Corrections and shall contain a recommendation to the court on the treatment program most appropriate to the diagnosed needs of the offender, based upon the offender’s custody classification, rehabilitative requirements, and the utilization of treatment resources in proximity to the offender’s home environment.
History.—s. 8, ch. 74-112; s. 12, ch. 75-49; s. 2, ch. 75-301; s. 18, ch. 77-120; s. 30, ch. 79-3; s. 1, ch. 90-69; s. 1548, ch. 97-102.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Sidney Norvil, Jr. v. State of Florida, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016).
Sidney Norvil, Jr. v. State of Florida, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016). “The majority concludes that the sentencing court is precluded from considering criminal acts committed by a defendant after the date of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced because the sentencing court is limited to the consideration of facts detailed in the…”
Alvin Davis v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “§ 921.231(1)—these factors aid the court in gauging a defendant’s rehabilitation potential.”
Pierre Imbert v. State, 154 So. 3d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “Against this legislative backdrop, we determined that a sentencing court may consider a defendant’s pending charges if they are related to the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced.”
Charles v. State, 204 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “First, the goal of general deterrence is already addressed by the sentencing scheme put in place by the Legislature. Second, the CPC does not include general deterrence in its “unambiguous” list of factors a trial court may consider in sentencing an individual defendant.”
James Robertson v. State of Florida, 187 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2016). “231(l)(o) provides that the PSI should include “[a] recommendation as to disposition by the court” based on consideration of several factors.”
Huntley v. State, 339 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1976). “This cause is an appeal transferred to us from the Fourth District Court of Appeal because the trial judge directly held invalid Section 921.231, Florida Statutes (Supplement 1974).”
Charles William Proffitt v. Louie L. Wainwright, Sec'y, Florida Dep't of Offender Rehab., 685 F.2d 1227 (11th Cir. 1982). “, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 921.231 (West Supp.1982).”
Anthony Chas Parr v. State of Florida, 247 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “It looked to those factors enumerated in the provisions of the presentence investigation report, noting that under section 921.231(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), a court may consider an offender’s prior arrests and convictions, as well as the definition of “prior record” in the…”
Jansson v. State, 399 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). “After the jury's verdict, the defendant requested a presentence investigation, which was prepared in accordance with Section 921.231, Florida Statutes (1979).”
Thompson v. State, 638 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). “Requiring the court to announce to a defendant, before accepting his or her plea, that the court will (as opposed to may) habitualize requires the court to make its decision prior to receipt and review of a presentence investigation, § 921.231, Fla. Stat. (1993), prior to a…”
Johnny M. Brown, Jr. v. State, 225 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). “The Court did so based upon its interpretation of the Criminal Punishment Code and section 921.231, Florida Statutes, regarding presentence investigation reports.”
Cabriano v. State, 211 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “Both incidents, in large part, were part of the evidence admitted at trial.”
— 921.231(1) — 13 cases
Sidney Norvil, Jr. v. State of Florida, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016). “The majority concludes that the sentencing court is precluded from considering criminal acts committed by a defendant after the date of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced because the sentencing court is limited to the consideration of facts detailed in the…”
Pierre Imbert v. State, 154 So. 3d 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “Against this legislative backdrop, we determined that a sentencing court may consider a defendant’s pending charges if they are related to the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced.”
Charles v. State, 204 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “First, the goal of general deterrence is already addressed by the sentencing scheme put in place by the Legislature. Second, the CPC does not include general deterrence in its “unambiguous” list of factors a trial court may consider in sentencing an individual defendant.”
In Re Amendments to Florida Rule of Jud. Admin. 2.420, 68 So. 3d 228 (Fla. 2011).
Alvin Davis v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “§ 921.231(1)—these factors aid the court in gauging a defendant’s rehabilitation potential.”
— 921.231(1)(a) — 1 case
Sheffield v. State, 580 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
— 921.231(1)(c) — 8 cases
Sidney Norvil, Jr. v. State of Florida, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016). “The majority concludes that the sentencing court is precluded from considering criminal acts committed by a defendant after the date of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced because the sentencing court is limited to the consideration of facts detailed in the…”
Anthony Chas Parr v. State of Florida, 247 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). “It looked to those factors enumerated in the provisions of the presentence investigation report, noting that under section 921.231(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), a court may consider an offender’s prior arrests and convictions, as well as the definition of “prior record” in the…”
Alvin Davis v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “§ 921.231(1)—these factors aid the court in gauging a defendant’s rehabilitation potential.”
Reese v. State, 639 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Timothy Turner v. State of Florida, 261 So. 3d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
— 921.231(1)(l) — 1 case
Alvin Davis v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “§ 921.231(1)—these factors aid the court in gauging a defendant’s rehabilitation potential.”
— 921.231(1)(m) — 1 case
Alvin Davis v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “§ 921.231(1)—these factors aid the court in gauging a defendant’s rehabilitation potential.”
— 921.231(g) — 1 case
Love v. State, 235 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
— 921.231(l)(a) — 1 case
Cabriano v. State, 211 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). “Both incidents, in large part, were part of the evidence admitted at trial.”
— 921.231(l)(c) — 2 cases
Sidney Norvil, Jr. v. State of Florida, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016). “The majority concludes that the sentencing court is precluded from considering criminal acts committed by a defendant after the date of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced because the sentencing court is limited to the consideration of facts detailed in the…”
Charles v. State, 204 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “First, the goal of general deterrence is already addressed by the sentencing scheme put in place by the Legislature. Second, the CPC does not include general deterrence in its “unambiguous” list of factors a trial court may consider in sentencing an individual defendant.”
— 921.231(l)(d) — 1 case
German v. State, 27 So. 3d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
— 921.231(l)(h) — 1 case
Andrews v. State, 207 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
— 921.231(l)(i) — 1 case
In Re Amendments to Florida Rule of Jud. Admin. 2.420, 68 So. 3d 228 (Fla. 2011).
— 921.231(l)(n) — 1 case
Dickie v. State, 216 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
— 921.231(l)(o) — 1 case
James Robertson v. State of Florida, 187 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2016). “231(l)(o) provides that the PSI should include “[a] recommendation as to disposition by the court” based on consideration of several factors.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.