(concurring).
The trial judge announced from the bench that it was the standard policy in his court that once a defendant stands trial, probation for such a defendant would not be considered. This policy or rule is self-imposed. It is contrary to the statute and the rule of criminal procedure authorizing probation. Such a rule should not be followed. A defendant m a criminal case should not be punished by a heavy^ sentence merely because he exercises his constitutional right to be tned before an impartial judge or jury.
In the case at bar, McGhee, the four-time convicted felon, and the ringleader, received a two-year term. The three defendants other than Wiley, all of whom had criminal records, received sentences of one year and a day. Yet, Wiley, who had a good previous record except for one juvenile matter when he was thirteen years old, received a three-year term. A realistic appraisal of the situation comPels the conclusion that Wiley’s comparalively severe sentence was due to the fact that he stood trial- No other P0SS1' ble basis is suggested for the disparity, Consciously or not, the learned trial judge again applied the standard of his rule when he reimposed the three-year , T ... , , sentence. I agree this sentence should ,, ... , , , , not be permitted to stand.