Lee A. Stewart v. Commonwealth, 2013-CA-001716, rendered 5/22/15,
to be published, reversing and remanding. Opinion by Chief Judge Acree, Moore
and Thompson concurring.
Because the
trial judge should have allowed Stewart an opportunity to controvert alleged
errors in his Presentence Investigation Report (PSI), the Court of Appeals
reversed and remanded with instructions to afford Stewart “the fair
opportunity, within a reasonable period of time, to controvert the findings
contained in the PSI.”
It is not DOC’s job to correct a
PSI, and they will not do so. It is the trial court’s job not merely to “note”
errors in a PSI, but to afford an opportunity to put on evidence, and to
correct the PSI accordingly.
The proper
procedure for challenging a faulty PSI is by direct appeal. A challenge to the
PSI can be raised on direct appeal even if no other issue is raised.
Contributed by Susan Balliet.
