Okla. Stat. » Title 22 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982 (2026)

Presentence investigation

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Whenever a person is convicted of a violent felony offense whether the conviction is for a single offense or part of any combination of offenses, except when the death sentence is available as punishment for the offense, the court may, before imposing the sentence, require a presentence investigation be made of the offender by the Department of Corrections. The court shall order the defendant to pay a fee to the Department of Corrections of not less than Fifty Dollars ($50.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for the presentence investigation. In hardship cases, the court may reduce the amount of the fee and establish a payment schedule. B. Whenever a person has a prior felony conviction and enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony offense other than a violent felony offense, without an agreement by the district attorney regarding the sentence to be imposed, the court may order a

presentence investigation be made by the Department of Corrections. The fee provided in subsection A of this section shall apply to persons subject to this subsection. C. Whenever a person has entered a plea of not guilty to a nonviolent felony offense and is found guilty by a court following a non-jury trial, the court may require a presentence investigation be made by the Department of Corrections. The fee provided in subsection A of this section shall apply to persons subject to this subsection. D. When conducting a presentence investigation, the Department shall inquire into the circumstances of the offense and the characteristics of the offender. The information obtained from the investigation shall include, but not be limited to, a voluntary statement from each victim of the offense concerning the nature of the offense and the impact of the offense on the victim and the immediate family of the victim, the amount of the loss suffered or incurred by the victim as a result of the criminal conduct of the offender, and the age, marital status, living arrangements, financial obligations, income, family history and education, prior juvenile and criminal records, associations with other persons convicted of a felony offense, social history, indications of a predisposition to violence or substance abuse, remorse or guilt about the offense or the harm to the victim, job skills and employment history of the offender. The Department shall make a report of information from such investigation to the court, including a recommendation detailing the punishment which is deemed appropriate for both the offense and the offender, and specifically a recommendation for or against probation or suspended sentence. The report of the investigation shall be presented to the judge within a reasonable time, and upon failure to present the report, the judge may proceed with sentencing. Whenever, in the opinion of the court or the Department, it is desirable, the investigation shall include a physical and mental examination or either a physical or mental examination of the offender. E. The district attorney may have a presentence investigation made by the Department on each person charged with a violent felony offense and entering a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere as part of or in exchange for a plea agreement for a violent felony offense. The presentence investigation shall be completed before the terms of the plea agreement are finalized. The court shall not approve the terms of any plea agreement without reviewing the presentence investigation report to determine whether or not the terms of the sentence are appropriate for both the offender and the offense. The fee provided in subsection A of this section shall apply to persons subject to this subsection and shall be a condition of the plea agreement and sentence.

F. The presentence investigation reports specified in this section shall not be referred to, or be considered, in any appeal proceedings. Before imposing a sentence, the court shall advise the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and the district attorney of the factual contents and conclusions of the presentence investigation report. The court shall afford the offender a fair opportunity to controvert the findings and conclusions of the reports at the time of sentencing. If either the defendant or the district attorney desires, a hearing shall be set by the court to allow both parties an opportunity to offer evidence proving or disproving any finding contained in a report, which shall be a hearing in mitigation or aggravation of punishment. G. The required presentence investigation and report may be waived upon written waiver by the district attorney and the defendant and upon approval by the Court. H. As used in this section, "violent felony offense" means: 1. Arson in the first degree; 2. Assault with a dangerous weapon, battery with a dangerous weapon or assault and battery with a dangerous weapon; 3. Aggravated assault and battery on a police officer, sheriff, highway patrol officer, or any other officer of the law; 4. Assault with intent to kill, or shooting with intent to kill; 5. Assault with intent to commit a felony, or use of a firearm to commit a felony; 6. Assault while masked or disguised; 7. Burglary in the first degree or burglary with explosives; 8. Child beating or maiming; 9. Forcible sodomy; 10. Kidnapping, or kidnapping for extortion; 11. Lewd or indecent proposition or lewd or indecent acts with a child; 12. Manslaughter in the first or second degrees; 13. Murder in the first or second degrees; 14. Rape in the first or second degrees, or rape by instrumentation; 15. Robbery in the first or second degrees, or robbery by two or more persons, or robbery with a dangerous weapon; or 16. Any attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit any of the above enumerated offenses. Added by Laws 1967, c. 277, § 1, emerg. eff. May 8, 1967. Amended by Laws 1975, c. 369, § 1, emerg. eff. June 18, 1975; Laws 1982, c. 25, § 1, operative Oct. 1, 1982; Laws 1992, c. 319, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1992; Laws 1997, c. 328, § 1; Laws 2002, c. 460, § 18, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2017, c. 170, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2017; Laws 2019, c. 326, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2019.

NOTE: Laws 1997, c. 133, § 19 repealed by Laws 1999, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 5, § 452, eff. July 1, 1999. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 19 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2024 · leading case: Lodowski v. State, 490 A.2d 1228 (Md. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lodowski v. State, 490 A.2d 1228 (Md. 1986). · cites it 4× “Pamphlet 1962 to 1983) (presentence investigation not required in capital cases); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 982 (West Supp.”
Luna v. State, 2016 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “22 O.S.2011, § 982(D) ("If either the defendant or the district attorney desires, a hearing shall be set by the court to allow both parties an opportunity to offer evidence proving or disproving any finding contained in a [PSI] report, which shall be a hearing in mitigation or…”
Young v. State, 553 P.2d 192 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). · cites it 7× “I feel it necessary to emphasize, however, that today's holding is limited to the use of defendant's juvenile court record in a pre-sentencing report authorized by 22 O.S.Supp., § 982, the purpose of which is to aid the trial judge in tailoring punishment to fit the individual…”
Staggs v. State, 719 P.2d 1297 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “As his second assignment of error, appellant alleges that the presentence investigation statute, 22 O.S.Supp.1983, § 982, is unconstitutional because it deprives persons convicted of misdemeanors from presenting mitigating evidence to the trial court at the sentencing stage.”
Davis v. State, 665 P.2d 1186 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “369, § 1; now 22 O.S.Supp. 1980, § 982. That statute specifically excludes those cases in which the death penalty is imposed.”
Magnan v. State, 2009 OK CR 16 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “[3] This Court is normally prohibited from considering the contents of a presentence investigation report by 22 O.S.Supp.2002, § 982 (D), which explicitly directs that "[t]he presentence investigation reports specified in this section shall not be referred to, or be considered…”
State v. Hunter, 787 P.2d 864 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “This plan is in lieu of the presentence investigation which is required pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp. 1982, § 982. In fact, the requirements of each of these provisions are substantially the same.”
Stouffer v. State, 738 P.2d 1349 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “recording would not be heard by them and then during second stage admitted it and another tape in their entirety (the section originally not allowed contained improper evidence of other crimes which was later proper in the sentencing stage); did not instruct the jury of any…”
Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). “While the State concedes that 22 O.S.1981, § 982 does require a pre-sentence investigation since the appellant was not sentenced to death, the appellant was given the minimum sentence for the crime for which he was convicted.”
Smith v. State, 594 P.2d 784 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “That statute provides in pertinent part as follows: “Whenever a person is convicted of a felony except when the death sentence is imposed, the court shall, before imposing sentence to commit any felon to incarceration by the Department of Corrections, order a presentence…”
Vanderpool v. State, 2018 OK CR 39 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “After the discharge of the jury, the trial court is free to consider the presentence investigation report provided for in 22 O.S.Supp.2017, § 982 at the formal sentencing hearing.”
Chaney v. State, 612 P.2d 269 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “10 and 22 O.S.Supp.1979, § 982; but the fact is that the trial judge is expressly prohibited from suspending a sentence of death by 22 O.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982(A): 1 case
Taylor v. Martin (E.D. Okla. 2020).
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982(B): 1 case
Ochoa v. Bass, 2008 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008).
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 982(D): 3 cases
Luna v. State, 2016 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). “22 O.S.2011, § 982(D) ("If either the defendant or the district attorney desires, a hearing shall be set by the court to allow both parties an opportunity to offer evidence proving or disproving any finding contained in a [PSI] report, which shall be a hearing in mitigation or…”
Magnan v. State, 2009 OK CR 16 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). “[3] This Court is normally prohibited from considering the contents of a presentence investigation report by 22 O.S.Supp.2002, § 982 (D), which explicitly directs that "[t]he presentence investigation reports specified in this section shall not be referred to, or be considered…”
Luna v. State, 2016 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
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.