KENNETH WINSTON METCHIK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Kenneth Metchik appealed his guilty plea conviction to two felony drug charges, arguing the information was deficient because it failed to allege the amount of cannabis involved, which he claimed made the charges misdemeanors rather than felonies. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentencing portion because the trial court illegally imposed both jail time and probation together.
The court held that no error was presented regarding the guilty plea because the record showed the appellant specifically bargained a guilty plea to two felony counts. However, the sentence was illegal because Florida law does not permit a jail sentence to be followed by a probation period; the court therefore modified the sentence by eliminating the probation provision.
[1] A challenge to the vagueness of an information is waived by a guilty plea entered after the information has been filed.
[2] A sentence may not impose a maximum term in county jail followed by a period of probation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that no error is presented because the record clearly shows that appellant bargained a plea to two counts charging felonies. The most that can be said against the information is that it might have been subject to an attack for vagueness. Such an attack comes too late after a plea of guilty.”
Establishes that defects in an information cannot be challenged after a guilty plea is entered.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMetchik pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully selling, bartering, exchanging, or giving cannabis in violation of Florida law. He was adjudged gui…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misdemeanor Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts, each charging that he did on separate occasions “unlawfully and feloniously sell, barter, exchange or give a certain drug, to wit: cannabis” in violation of Fla.Stat. § 404.02, F.S.A. He was adjudged guilty of the commission of a felony on each count and sentenced to serve one year in the county jail and eighteen months thereafter on probation.
On this appeal, he urges that he was improperly adjudged guilty of the felonies because under the language of the information he could have been guilty only of possession of the drug and a gift of it to another, and that in the absence of an allegation of the amount of the drug possessed by him, the charges are properly for misdemeanors only. See Collins v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 271 So. 2d 156.
We hold that no error is presented because the record clearly shows that appellant bargained a plea to two counts charging felonies.1 The most that can be said against the information is that it might have been subject to an attack for vagueness. Such an attack comes too late after a plea of guilty. Cf. Tracey v. State, Fla. 1961, 130 So. 2d 605.
This court, upon examination of the record, noted the illegality of the sentence imposed. A sentence may not be imposed for the maximum term of one year in the county jail and be followed by a period of probation for eighteen months. See Fla.Stat. § 948.01(4), F.S.A.; Hutchins v. State, Fla.App. 3rd 1973, 286 So. 2d 244. Cf. Williams v. State, Fla.App.1973, 280 So. 2d 518.
We therefore affirm the judgment and modify the. sentence by eliminating the provision for probation.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
. The following colloquy between the court and the defendant is representative of the questions asked by the court:
“The Court: I appreciate your motion. Mr. Metchik, you indicated through your attorney, Mr. Moran, your desire to plead guilty to two counts of sale of marijuana, a felony in the State of Florida, is that correct?
Defendant Metchik: That’s correct.
The Court: Do you understand each of these counts is a felony of which the Court could sentence you to a maximum of five years in the State Penitentiary or a total of 10 years, you understand that?
Defendant Metchik: Yes, sir. The Court: All right, sir.” [Emphasis supplied]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jones, 327 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1976)…2d 122 (Fla.App.3d 1974); Kohn v. State, 289 So. 2d 48 (Fla.App.3d 1974); Harris v. State, 288 So. 2d 552 (Fla.App.3d 1974); McNeill v. State, 287 So. 2d 745 (Fla.App. 3d 1974); Cleveland v. State, 287 So. 2d 347 (Fla.App.3d 1973); Metchik v. State, 286 So. 2d 269 (Fla.App.3d 1973); Hutchins v. State, 286 So. 2d 244 (Fla. App.3d 1973), and Mylks v. State, 285 So. 2d 434 (Fla.App.3d 1973). See also Green v. State, 310 So. 2d 373 (Fla.App.3d 1975), and Durham v. State, 304 So. 2d 146 (Fla.App.3d 1974). In Hutc…
-
Lewis v. State, 298 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)….1974); McNeill v. State, 287 So. 2d 745 (3d D.C.A. Fla.1974); Reynolds v. State, 293 So. 2d 743 (3d D.C.A. Fla.1974); Cleveland v. State, 287 So. 2d 347 (3d D.C.A. Fla.1973); Hutchins v. State, 286 So. 2d 244 (3d D.C.A. Fla.1973); Metchik v. State, 286 So. 2d 269 (3d D.C.A. Fla.1973); Mylks v. State, 285 So. 2d 434 (3d D.C.A. Fla.1973). Each of the above cases reflects a sequence of events where the defendant was adjudged to be guilty of the crime charged. A sentence was then imposed, a portion of the sente…
-
Yates v. State, 509 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…of law. Appellant’s final point is without merit. By pleading guilty, he waived any infirmities in the form of the information not fatal to its sufficiency to charge an offense. See Lends v. Mayo, 127 Fla. 488, 173 So. 346 (1937); Metchik v. State, 286 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (attacking an information for vagueness comes too late after a plea of guilty). The order denying relief is reversed in part and the cause is remanded with directions to reduce the period of retention of jurisdiction to a term no…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 280 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Tracey v. State, 130 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1961)
- Hutchins v. State, 286 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Collins v. State, 271 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)