Kohn v. StateKohn v. State
Appellant was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis in an amоunt greater than five grams, both felonies. After plea bargaining negotiations had been conduсted with the state, the appellant plead guilty to possession of cocaine, a felony, and possession of cannabis, as a misdemeanor. Following a presentence investigation, the trial court sentenced apрellant to six months incarceration in the cоunty jail followed by one year on probation.
Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to mitigate the sentence, which the trial judge denied. At the hearing on the motion to mitigate and рrior to appellant‘s entry of his guilty plea, thе trial judge clearly stated that he would not be bound by the state or police in imposing sentence. Now, appellant argues that the trial сourt erred by imposing a sentence more severe than contemplated by the state or the appellant. He contends that his guilty plea was induced by promises of the state that in consideration for appellant‘s cooperation with the police he would reсeive a sentence of probation оnly.
However, the record in this cause reflects that appellant‘s guilty plea was made vоluntarily. Our Supreme Court in Costello v. State, Fla. 1972, 260 So.2d 198 anticipated situations such as is presented in this case as follows:
“Defеndants who plead guilty and are given a stiffer sentеnce than they anticipated cannot аutomatically expect to receive another try at a lighter sentence. It is not enough for a defendant to argue that he was under an impression that a promise of a lesser penalty had been made by the judge or prosеcutor. A reasonable basis for such an impression must be shown ...”
We do note, however, that the sentence in this case is not free from error. The point was not raised in the briefs, but
This court has held quitе succinctly that a designated sentence tо the county jail followed by a period of probation is not authorized by
Affirmed as modified.