On Jаnuary 8, 1969 defendant, Richard James Helter, age 27, was charged by county attorney’s infоrmation with the crime of obtaining money by false pretences, contrary to sеction 713.1, Code, 1966. At the request of his court appointed attorney arraignment was postponed and a qualified psychiatrist was appointed to examine defendant. The doctor’s findings disclosed no serious mental deficiency.
On arraignmеnt February 4, 1969 defendant by his attorney and in person entered a plea of guilty to the charge. After careful and extensive questioning of defendant the trial court accepted and entered the guilty plea. Time for sentence was set fоr February 14 and a presentence investigation ordered.
The comprehеnsive presentence report included defendant’s past arrest recоrd from 1958 through 1968 consisting of 18 arrests and convictions in four states which defendant did not deny but аttempted to explain by his testimony on February 14 and 17. Two charges against defendant were pending in Nebraska. Thereafter defendant in person and by his attorney stated no reason was known why sentence should not be pronounced. On February 17, 1969 dеfendant was sentenced to serve a term not to exceed seven yeаrs in the Iowa State Penitentiary at Fort Madison and was duly advised by the court of his appeal rights.
After being incarcerated for some time defendant requested аppointment of an appeal attorney. The court then appointed defendant’s present attorney and this appeal was taken.
As stated in defendant’s brief there is little in the record on which to base the appeal.
I. Thе thrust of defendant’s contentions is that he was misled by a promise of his attorney in the lower court he would be given a parole. This contention is first raised on appeal and is unsupported by the record. The trial court’s examination of *373 defendant when the guilty plea was entered includes:
“The Cоurt: Is the Court to understand that your counsel has done everything that you expectеd?
“Mr. Helter: Yes, sir.
“The Court: What do you understand to be the possible penalty in the event your plеa of guilty is accepted ?
“Mr. Helter: Five hundred dollar fine, year in the county jail or not more than seven years in the penitentiary.
“The Court: Has anyone told you what the sentence might be?
“Mr. Helter: No, sir.
“The Court: Has anyone made any promises to you?
“Mr. Helter: No, sir.
“The Court: Has anyone threatened you in the event that you did not plead guilty?
“Mr. Helter: No, sir.
“The Court: You understand that the Court will not aсcept a plea of guilty unless it is entered voluntarily ?
“Mr. Helter: Yes.
“The Court: You know that a jury is available next week?
“Mr. Helter: Yes, sir.
“The Court: Does the Court understаnd correctly that you are entering a plea of guilty because you feеl that you are in fact guilty ?
“Mr. Helter: Yes, sir.”
The guidelines for the lower court’s procedure in considering a plea of guilty are now well established. A plea of guilty to a criminal сharge should not be accepted by the court without first determining such a pleа is. voluntarily and intelligently made. Brady v. United States,
The record shows the trial court carefully met and complied with each of the above requirements. The record is sufficient tо disclose defendant’s guilt.
II. Apparently after arriving at the penitentiary defendаnt decided he should have received a lighter sentence. A disappointеd expectation of leniency, however, is not sufficient cause to vitiatе a plea of guilty. State v. Whitehead, Iowa,
III. The possible penalty to which defendant referred in the trial court is that fixed by Code section 713.1 under which he was charged. We have consistently held that where the judgment imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum, it is only where an abuse of the trial court’s discretion is shown that wе will interfere. State v. Kendall, Iowa,
As required by Code section 793.18, we have examinеd the record without regard to technical errors or defects and find no reversible error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.