Bolt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bolt v. State

376 So. 2d 396, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16029

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 1979

DocketNo. LL-31

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 376 So. 2d 396 (Bolt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bolt v. State, 376 So. 2d 396, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16029 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bolt, having pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of possession of over five grams of cannabis, appeals contending the sentence imposed upon him was erroneous and disproportionate to that received by his co-defendant. Since the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum provided by the legislature for a violation of Section 893.13(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), we are without authority to review the sentence. Walker v. State, 44 So.2d 814 (Fla.1950). Rohdin v. State, 105 So.2d 371 (Fla.2d DCA 1958). It does appear that the trial court may have been under the impression that Bolt was guilty of sale of cannabis, rather than mere possession, which is not supported by the record before us. If Bolt’s sentence was predicated on erroneous information, the court, in its discretion, may reduce the sentence pursuant to Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.800(b). We note from the record before us that a motion for reduction of sentence has been filed, although an order has not been entered thereon. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.

McCORD, Acting C. J., SHIVERS, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Bolt, having pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of possession of over five grams of cannabis, appeals contending the sentence imposed upon him was erroneous and disproportionate to that received by his co-defendant. Since the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum provided by the legislature for a violation of Section 893.13(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1977), we are without authority to review the sentence. Walker v. State, 44 So.2d 814 (Fla.1950). Rohdin v. State, 105 So.2d 371 (Fla.2d DCA 1958). It does appear that the trial court may have been under the impression that Bolt was guilty of sale of cannabis, rather than mere possession, which is not supported by the record before us. If Bolt’s sentence was predicated on erroneous information, the court, in its discretion, may reduce the sentence pursuant to Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.800(b). We note from the record before us that a motion for reduction of sentence has been filed, although an order has not been entered thereon. The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.

McCORD, Acting C. J., SHIVERS, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

376 So. 2d 396, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolt-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack