Case Name: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Jon Flaherty, appellant
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1975-03-06
Citations: 193 Neb. 275
Docket Number: No. 39673
Parties: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Jon Flaherty, appellant.
Judges: Heard before White, C. J„ Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 193
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Jon Flaherty, appellant.
226 N. W. 2d 631
Filed March 6, 1975.
No. 39673.
Richard P. Garden, for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and Bernard L. Packett, for appellee.
Heard before White, C. J„ Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.

Opinion:
McCown, J.
The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of delivery of a controlled substance, first offense, and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. The sole issue on this appeal is whether or not the sentence is excessive.
The defendant was initially charged with .delivery of a controlled substance (LSD), second offense. Pursuant to the terms of a plea bargain the information was amended to charge only a first offense. The defendant pleaded guilty to the amended charge.
The record establishes that the defendant was placed on probation on a prior charge of delivery of cocaine only 9 days before Ms arrest on the charge here. The prosecution in this case offered to recommend a lesser sentence than 5 years if the defendant would testify as to where he obtained the LSD involved. The defendant refused and the prosecution recommended the 5-year sentence which the court imposed. The statutory range of sentence on this charge is 1 to 10 years.
Under the provisions of sections 28-4,125(2) and 83-1,105 (2), R, S. Supp., 1974, the 5-year term imposed here becomes an indeterminate sentence of 1 to 5 years. In the absence of an abuse of discretion a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Palmer, 191 Neb. 540, 216 N. W. 2d 178. The record here fully supports the action of the District Court. There was clearly no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.