State v. McFord

Decision Date28 February 1980
Docket NumberCA-CR,Nos. 1,s. 1
Citation125 Ariz. 377,609 P.2d 1077
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Respondent, v. Leonard L. McFORD, II, Petitioner. 3856-PR, 1 4069-PR.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals
John H. Grace, Coconino County Atty. by Christopher C. Wooten, Deputy County Atty., Flagstaff, for respondent
OPINION

OGG, Chief Judge.

On May 18, 1978, petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to 17 A.R.S., Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 32, alleging that his plea of guilty to second degree murder should be set aside based on newly discovered evidence. Attached to the petition were affidavits showing that one Clyde Edward Harris and one John Edward Mason had confessed to the crime of which petitioner was convicted, and had absolved petitioner of any involvement in the crime. An evidentiary hearing was held before the trial court, and the petition was denied. Petitioner timely filed a motion for rehearing, which was also denied, and a petition for review. Additionally, on January 31, 1979, petitioner filed yet another petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was entitled to be credited for time served in the county jail pursuant to his arrest because he was unable to post bail. That petition was summarily denied by the trial court. Petitioner's counsel filed a motion for rehearing in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Attached to the motion for rehearing was a memorandum ostensibly prepared by petitioner. The motion for rehearing was denied and petitioner timely filed a petition for review. We have consolidated both petitions and will consider them jointly in this decision.

Appellant pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to serve not less than fifteen nor more than twenty years in the Arizona State Prison or such other penal institution as might be arranged for by the Arizona Department of Corrections. His conviction and the trial court's denial of a previous petition for post-conviction relief were affirmed by this Court in State v. McFord, 115 Ariz. 246, 564 P.2d 935 (App.1977). Additionally, the trial court's denial of yet another petition for post-conviction relief was affirmed by this Court in State v. McFord, 1 CA-CR 2792-PR (memorandum decision filed May 2, 1978.) In the instant decision, we are considering petitioner's fourth and fifth petitions for post-conviction relief.

In petitioner's fourth petition for post-conviction relief, he asserted that the trial court should vacate his plea based upon the confessions of Harris and Mason. Harris and Mason were fellow prison inmates at the time they signed the confessions. The confessions indicated that although McFord was present at the scene of the crime, he had been struck on the head by Harris and was unconscious when McCallister (McFord's codefendant), Harris and Mason shot the victim. Following a hearing, the trial court issued an opinion and order which contained the following findings:

1. That the petitioner has, at all times, been effectively represented by competent counsel.

2. That the petitioner knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered a plea of guilty to the crime of second degree murder on May 4, 1976.

3. That the petitioner was competent to enter a plea of guilty on said date.

4. That said plea was the result of a plea agreement entered into between the petitioner and the prosecutor which the petitioner fully understood and consented to.

5. That at the time of the entry of said plea, there existed a basis in fact for believing the petitioner guilty of the offense charged.

6. That there continues to be a factual basis for believing the petitioner guilty of the crime charged.

7. That the petitioner has not presented sufficient grounds or evidence which would justify a withdrawal of his plea of guilty and revocation of his plea agreement.

The trial court reasoned that a plea agreement may operate in favor of persons who are not manifestly guilty of the crime charged when such a person, faced with a distinct possibility of a finding of guilt, may elect to enter into a plea and receive a sentence far less severe than might possibly have resulted from a trial on the original offense. The court noted that when a plea is knowingly and voluntarily entered with effective assistance of counsel, and when there is a factual basis for the plea, "the foundation and purpose of plea bargaining would be undermined by allowing a party to later recant and request withdrawal of his guilty plea." Finally, the trial court noted that a plea agreement "should be subject to revocation only under the most compelling circumstances." We agree.

In Arizona, the courts historically look with distrust "upon recanting statements of witnesses serving prison terms with nothing to lose by assisting another defendant." State v. Irwin, 106 Ariz. 536, 539, 479 P.2d 421, 424 (1971). See also State v. Ybarra, 22 Ariz.App. 330, 527 P.2d 107 (1974). We note that in appellant's first petition for review, he contended that his plea should be vacated because he had newly discovered evidence from his accomplice. Apparently the accomplice, McCallister, absolved McFord totally from culpability in the offense. See State v. McFord. This Court held then that the testimony of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • State v. Chavez
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 16 Noviembre 2017
    ...to conduct Anders -type reviews in PCRs."), and State v. Thompson, 139 Ariz. at 554, 679 P.2d at 577, and State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377, 380, 609 P.2d 1077, 1080 (App. 1980). Additionally, nothing in Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 requires the superior court or this court to conduct......
  • HAYDEN BUS. CENTER v. Pegasus Development
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 25 Enero 2005
  • State v. Bortz
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 27 Junio 1991
    ...552, 679 P.2d 575 (App.1984). This court does not conduct a review for fundamental error in Rule 32 proceedings. See State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377, 609 P.2d 1077 (App.1980) (where counsel filed motion for rehearing in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.......
  • O'Dell v. Ryan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • 12 Diciembre 2018
    ...possibility of a finding of guilt" to avoid the more severe sentence that could result from a jury trial. State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377, 379, 609 P.2d 1077, 1079 (App. 1980). To be entitled to post-conviction relief based upon newly discovered evidence, the defendant must show that the evi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT