Sec. 9. (a) As used in this chapter, "recommendation"
has the meaning set forth in IC 35-31.5-2-272, and "victim" has the
meaning set forth in IC 35-31.5-2-348.
(b) The presentence investigation consists of the gathering of
information with respect to:
(1) the circumstances attending the commission of the offense;
(2) the convicted person's history of delinquency or criminality,
social history, employment history, family situation, economic
status, education, and personal habits;
(3) the impact of the crime upon the victim; and
(4) whether the convicted person is:
(A) licensed or certified in a profession regulated by IC 25;
(B) licensed under IC 20-28-5; or
(C) employed, or was previously employed, as a teacher (as
defined in IC 20-18-2-22(b)) in a school corporation, charter
school, or nonpublic school.
(c) The presentence investigation may include any matter that the
probation officer conducting the investigation believes is relevant to
the question of sentence, and must include:
(1) any matters the court directs to be included;
(2) any written statements submitted to the prosecuting attorney
by a victim under IC 35-35-3;
(3) any written statements submitted to the probation officer by a
victim; and
(4) preparation of the victim impact statement required under
section 8.5 of this chapter.
(d) If there are no written statements submitted to the probation
officer, the probation officer shall certify to the court:
(1) that the probation officer has attempted to contact the victim;
and
(2) that if the probation officer has contacted the victim, the
probation officer has offered to accept the written statements of
the victim or to reduce the victim's oral statements to writing,
concerning the sentence, including the acceptance of any
recommendation.
(e) A presentence investigation report prepared by a probation
officer must include the information and comply with any other
requirements established in the rules adopted under IC 11-13-1-8.
(f) The probation officer shall consult with a community corrections
program officer or employee (if there is a community corrections
program in the county) regarding services and programs available to
the defendant while preparing the presentence investigation report.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.36-1990,
SEC.13; P.L.240-1991(ss2), SEC.91; P.L.216-1996, SEC.13;
P.L.155-2011, SEC.10; P.L.114-2012, SEC.77; P.L.179-2015, SEC.14;
P.L.185-2017, SEC.8.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case:
Hines v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Hines v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 7× “We would note that Indiana Code § 35-38-1-9 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928 (Ind. 1995).
· cites it 4× “See Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-1-8 .5(a) (West 1992); Ind.”
Dillon v. State, 492 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. 1986).
· cites it 6× “Code § 35-38-1-9 (Burns 1985), particularly subsection (c), expressly authorizes discretion: The presentence investigation may include any matter that the probation officer conducting the investigation believes is relevant to the questions of sentence.... We do not find the…”
Ryle v. State, 842 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. 2005).
· cites it 2× “6 Pursuant to this mandate, the board of the Judicial Conference adopted a standard pre-sentence investigation report that included all of the information specified in section 35-38-1-9(b)-(c); it also required all probation officers to adhere strictly to this format.”
Allen v. State, 720 N.E.2d 707 (Ind. 1999).
· cites it 4× “It was not error to include the whole history of Allen's encounters with the criminal justice system.”
Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Defendant is correct that the inclusion of victim impact statements was in *266 violation of Ind.Code § 35-38-1-9 as in effect at the time of his crime.”
Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564 (Ind. 2010).
· cites it 2× “" Ind.Code § 35-38-1-9(b)(2). In determining what sentence to impose, a trial court is guided by a non-exclusive statutory list of eleven aggravating and eleven *569 mitigating cireumstances.”
Wallace v. State, 486 N.E.2d 445 (Ind. 1985).
· cites it 2× “1-4 -10 [35-50-1A-10 (Burns 1979)] [repealed and replaced by Ind. Code § 35-38-1-9 (Burns Repl. 1985)].”
Flinn v. State, 563 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Wallace, however, holds that because the victim impact requirements of the statute, Ind. Code § 35-38-1-9 , were not intended to grant additional rights to defendants, the failure to comply strictly with the statute and include the victim's views on sentencing the defendant was…”
Lodowski v. State, 490 A.2d 1228 (Md. 1986).
· cites it 2× “1985); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-1-9 (Burns 1985); Iowa Code Ann.”
Ellis v. State, 567 N.E.2d 1142 (Ind. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Appellant contends the presentence investigation report did not conform to the requirements of Ind.Code § 35-38-1-9 in that it contained inflammatory remarks by the victim's family and evidence that one of the victim's daughters was receiving counseling.”
Wolfe v. State, 562 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. 1990).
· cites it 2× “We further note that our statute, Ind.Code § 35-38-1-9(c), and our cases, eg.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-9(b) — 1 case
Ryle v. State, 842 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. 2005).
“6 Pursuant to this mandate, the board of the Judicial Conference adopted a standard pre-sentence investigation report that included all of the information specified in section 35-38-1-9(b)-(c); it also required all probation officers to adhere strictly to this format.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-9(b)(1) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-9(b)(2) — 2 cases
Dillon v. State, 492 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. 1986).
“Code § 35-38-1-9 (Burns 1985), particularly subsection (c), expressly authorizes discretion: The presentence investigation may include any matter that the probation officer conducting the investigation believes is relevant to the questions of sentence.... We do not find the…”
Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564 (Ind. 2010).
“" Ind.Code § 35-38-1-9(b)(2). In determining what sentence to impose, a trial court is guided by a non-exclusive statutory list of eleven aggravating and eleven *569 mitigating cireumstances.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-9(b)(3) — 1 case
Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928 (Ind. 1995).
“See Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-1-8 .5(a) (West 1992); Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-9(c) — 2 cases
Hines v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“We would note that Indiana Code § 35-38-1-9 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Wolfe v. State, 562 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. 1990).
“We further note that our statute, Ind.Code § 35-38-1-9(c), and our cases, eg.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-9(d) — 1 case
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.