Haney v. Eyman, No. 8260
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | McFARLAND; LOCKWOOD |
| Citation | 399 P.2d 905,97 Ariz. 289 |
| Parties | Carlton HANEY, Petitioner, v. Frank A. EYMAN et al., Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 8260 |
| Decision Date | 17 March 1965 |
Page 905
v.
Frank A. EYMAN et al., Respondents.
[97 Ariz. 290] Brown, Vlassis & Bain, by George P. Vlassis, Phoenix, for petitioner.
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
McFARLAND, Justice:
On March 4, 1964, petitioner in propria persona petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus, and on June 4, 1964, the attorney general responded by a memorandum. Counsel for petitioner was appointed by this court, and thereafter, counsel submitted a memorandum in support of petitioner's petition, and the attorney general filed a reply thereto. On February 25, 1965, there was an oral argument and a formal hearing before this court, petitioner being present in person and represented by counsel, at which time petitioner testified, and records of the Arizona State Prison were introduced in evidence.
The facts of the case as developed show that on or about the 24th day of March, 1961, an information was filed by the county attorney charging petitioner with four alleged acts of forgery, under A.R.S. § 13-421. Counsel was appointed for petitioner,
Page 906
and on or about May 18, 1961, the original information was amended to one count, charging the passing of a $21.00 bogus [97 Ariz. 291] check, under provisions of A.R.S. § 13-311, and on the 31st day of May, 1961 (order was inadvertently dated May 31, 1960), petitioner pleaded guilty to that count in the presence of the court and the appointed counsel. On the same day, The Honorable Jack D. H. Hays, of Division 7, Superior Court of Maricopa County, State of Arizona, signed a judgment and order of suilty in Cause No. 37845, which suspended imposition of sentence of imprisonment for three years, pursuant to A.R.S § 13-1657, placed petitioner on probation on condition that he conduct himself as a lawabiding citizen, and directed that petitioner make restitution of certain monies, including $371.40 to the Vally National Bank. These amounts have evidently been paid.The criminal docket of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Division 6, shows that Judge Hays signed an order on August 14, 1963, in Cause No. 37845, revoking probation and sentencing petitioner as follows:
'The court found and advised the defendant that on the 31st day of May, 1961, the defendant was adjudged guilty of FORGERY (Count I) and that the defendant was then placed on probation. The court further found that the defendant violated said probation.
'IT IS ORDERED (revoking said probation).
'The defendant was asked whether he had anything to say or any legal cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced. There was none.
'IT IS THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF THE COURT that the defendant be sentenced to serve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gore, No. 88SA66
...v. Superior Court, 22 Ariz.App. 122, 124, 524 P.2d 956, 958 (1974) (citing Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-1657 (1974)); see also Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 291-293, 399 P.2d 905, 906-07 (1965) ("[E]ven though the maximum sentence might be for a longer period of time, if the suspension of the im......
-
State v. McGriff, No. 1
...by law for the charged offense of theft from a coin-operated contrivance, thus rendering illegal the sentence as imposed. Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 399 P.2d 905 (1965); State v. Anders, 1 Ariz.App. 181, 400 P.2d 852 (1965). At this point my esteemed colleagues and I disagree on the rema......
-
Keller v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, No. 1
...has been applied or recognized in several subsequent decisions, Pina v. State, 100 Ariz. 47, 410 P.2d 658 (1966); Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 399 P.2d 905 (1965); In re Johnson, 53 Ariz. 161, 87 P.2d 107 (1939); Brooks v. State, Supra; Rodgers v. State, 5 Ariz.App. 429, 427 P.2d 563 (1967......
-
Johnson v. State ex rel. Eyman, No. 2
...sentence and the pronouncement of sentence [4 Ariz.App. 338] Page 300 must be accomplished during the probationary period. Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 292, 399 P.2d 905 (1965); In re Johnson, 53 Ariz. 161, 87 P.2d 107 (1939); In re Keene, 47 Ariz. 191, 54 P.2d 791 (1936). In the instant c......
-
People v. Gore, No. 88SA66
...v. Superior Court, 22 Ariz.App. 122, 124, 524 P.2d 956, 958 (1974) (citing Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-1657 (1974)); see also Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 291-293, 399 P.2d 905, 906-07 (1965) ("[E]ven though the maximum sentence might be for a longer period of time, if the suspension of the im......
-
State v. McGriff, No. 1
...by law for the charged offense of theft from a coin-operated contrivance, thus rendering illegal the sentence as imposed. Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 399 P.2d 905 (1965); State v. Anders, 1 Ariz.App. 181, 400 P.2d 852 (1965). At this point my esteemed colleagues and I disagree on the rema......
-
Keller v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, No. 1
...has been applied or recognized in several subsequent decisions, Pina v. State, 100 Ariz. 47, 410 P.2d 658 (1966); Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 399 P.2d 905 (1965); In re Johnson, 53 Ariz. 161, 87 P.2d 107 (1939); Brooks v. State, Supra; Rodgers v. State, 5 Ariz.App. 429, 427 P.2d 563 (1967......
-
Johnson v. State ex rel. Eyman, No. 2
...sentence and the pronouncement of sentence [4 Ariz.App. 338] Page 300 must be accomplished during the probationary period. Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 292, 399 P.2d 905 (1965); In re Johnson, 53 Ariz. 161, 87 P.2d 107 (1939); In re Keene, 47 Ariz. 191, 54 P.2d 791 (1936). In the instant c......