LAWRENCE J. FARHAT, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the appeal is premature because no adjudication of guilt or sentence has been imposed, and the probation period is permissible for a misdemeanor.
Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of more than five grams of a hallucinogenic drug. The record supported possession but not the quantity alleged.…
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 Withholding Adjudication Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the voluntariness of his plea of guilty. The information lodged by the state charged appellant in two counts with 1) possession of barbiturates and 2) possession of a hallucinogenic drug (cannabis) in an amount more than five grams. After an extensive dialogue between the court and appellant,1 the court accepted appellant’s voluntary plea of guilty to the charge of possession of a hallucinogenic drug of more than five grams. The trial judge then entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence placing appellant on probation for three years.
The sole point posed by appellant is that the factual basis established in the record is inadequate to support his plea of guilty. The extensive record before us establishes without contradiction that appellant voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to possession of hallucinogenic drugs. However, the record also clearly reveals that appellant was guilty only of possession of less than five grams of such drugs. In asmuch as an adjudication of guilt has not been found and sentence has not been imposed, appellant has not suffered from any erroneous sentence. The three-year period of probation falls within a permissible period for the commission of a misdemeanor.2 In the event that appellant’s probation should be revoked, the trial court at that time may not impose a sentence exceeding that prescribed for the misdemeanor of possession of less than five grams of a hallucinogenic drug.
The order appealed is affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. . The transcript of the proceedings as to the plea of guilty and order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing appellant on probation encompasses forty-four pages.
. Section 948.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parent v. State, 312 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…(4th D.C.A.Fla.1974): “[F.S. 924.06] clearly limits this appeal to review of proceedings that occurred after the entry of the order of probation.” Appellant has collaterally questioned his original sentence. We are not unaware of Farhat v. State, 293 So. 2d 723 (1st D.C.A. Fla.1974), in which a felony judgment on insufficient evidence limited any sentencing thereafter if probation were revoked, but deem it inapplicable to this circumstance because appellant here did not timely appeal his adjudication and s…
Authorities Cited
- Farhat v. State, 285 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)