State v. Lee
| Decision Date | 16 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3222,3222 |
| Citation | 541 P.2d 383,112 Ariz. 283 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Charles LEE, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer, III, Thomas A. Jacobs, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by Garth V. Smith, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
Charles Lee, Jr., was indicted for the crime of armed robbery. A.R.S. § 13--641; § 13--643. On the morning that the trial was to commence, the judge granted the state's motion to add the allegation of a prior conviction and ruled that certain statements of Lee were voluntary and admissible. That afternoon, defense counsel indicated to the court that Lee wished to plead guilty to the charge. While the trial judge was aware that as a part of this plea, the state agreed not to proceed with the allegation of a prior conviction, the knowledge of the court is demonstrated only by the transcript of the proceedings; there was no written plea agreement filed. After extensive questioning, the court accepted the plea of guilty July 29, 1974.
Thereafter, Lee filed a motion for a change of plea in propria persona. He had been erroneously advised by an inmate of the county jail that he had 20 days in which to change his mind about pleading guilty. Hearings were held on September 13 and September 30, 1974. Lee contended that he was 'tricked' by his attorney, the public defender, into thinking that he would get less of a jail term if he pled guilty. It became apparent that counsel had tried to explain to Lee that Lee would get a shorter sentence because the allegation of a prior conviction would be dropped. Lee also told the court that he had not been properly advised of his constitutional rights, but remembered the judge asking him the same questions that the judge was then asking him concerning the rights that he would waive upon a plea of guilty.
The court found that there was no basis upon which to allow Lee to withdraw his plea of guilty and sentenced him to a period of not less than 25 nor more than 35 years in the Arizona State Prison. Lee now appeals contending that the trial court failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 17, 1973 Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 47(e)(5), Rules of the Supreme Court.
This court is not inclined to find an appellant's later dissatisfaction with his plea bargain an appropriate basis for reversal. State v. Howard, 106 Ariz. 403, 476 P.2d 858 (1970). However, Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whitley
...when the trial court communicated with the jury outside of the defendant's and defense counsel's presence); State v. Lee, 112 Ariz. 283, 284, 541 P.2d 383, 384 (1975) (reversing the defendant's conviction based upon the trial court's failure to follow Ariz. R.Crim. P. 17.4); State v. Daniel......
-
State v. Draper
...agreement, the voluntariness and intelligence of the plea, and whether the agreement is fully understood by the parties. State v. Lee 112 Ariz. 283, 541 P.2d 383 (1975); United States v. Roberts, 570 F.2d 999 (D.C.Cir.1977); see Santobella v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d......
-
State v. Lee
...hearing, the Armed Robbery conviction, which was the basis for one of the aggravating circumstances, was reversed. State v. Lee, 112 Ariz. 283, 541 P.2d 383 (1975). The conviction of the appellant is affirmed, but the sentence imposed is set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial cour......
-
State v. Rios
...intelligent quality of the plea in accord with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).' State v. Lee, 112 Ariz. 283, 541 P.2d 383 (1975). A plea cannot be considered 'intelligently' made where, as in this case, there is no evidence that the defendant was at an......