Pina v. State, No. 8719
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 100 Ariz. 47,410 P.2d 658 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Edward B. PINA, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Arizona, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 8719 |
Page 658
v.
The STATE of Arizona, Respondent.
Amelia D. Lewis, Sun City, for petitioner.
[100 Ariz. 48] Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., James S. Tegart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
On January 18, 1966, Edward B. Pina filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. His petition disclosed that on February 9, 1960, petitioner being present in open court in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, together with his counsel, pleaded guilty to the crime of illegal possession of narcoties, a felony; and, it appearing to the court that the ends of justice would be best served if sentence was not then imposed, petitioner was placed on probation and sentence was suspended for a term of five years. Thereafter, after, on the 29th day of November, 1960, probation having theretofore been revoked, petitioner being present in open court but not in the presence of his counsel was sentenced to the State Prison at Florence, Arizona, for a term of not less than fifteen years nor more than twenty years.
The sentence on November 29, 1960, having been pronounced in the absence of petitioner's counsel, was invalid. Lee v. State, 99 Ariz. 269, 408 P.2d 408. The time within which petitioner can be resentenced expired on February 9, 1965. Haney v. Eyman, 97 Ariz. 289, 399 P.2d 905; In re Johnson, 53 Airz. 161, 87 P.2d 107; Brooks v. State, 51 Ariz. 544, 78 P.2d 498, 117 A.L.R. 925.
The sentence and commitment of the Superior Court of Maricopa County is vacated and set aside and petitioner is ordered discharged from the State Prison at Florence, Arizona.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benitez v. Dunevant, No. CV-98-0540-PR.
...crimes; (b) the severity of the potential penalties made available by statute; and (c) the moral quality of the offense. See Rothweiler, 100 Ariz. at 47, 410 P.2d at ¶ 8 The application of these factors does not follow a set formula. However, we held in State ex rel. McDougall v. Strohson t......
-
Manic v. Dawes, No. 2 CA-CV 2005-0128.
...§ 28-1381(F) to create a statutory right to a jury trial that parallels the constitutional right to a jury trial. See Rothweiler, 100 Ariz. at 47, 410 P.2d at ¶ 13 Moreover, as Division One pointed out in Smith, § 22-320 governs trial procedures in justice court, while § 28-1381 is a substa......
-
Raye v. Jones, No. 1 CA-SA 03-0001.
...made available by statute; and (3) the moral quality of the offense. Benitez, 198 Ariz. at 93, ¶ 7, 7 P.3d at 102 (citing Rothweiler, 100 Ariz. at 47, 410 P.2d at 486). The court stated that the most significant factor among the three is the maximum potential penalty authorized by the statu......
-
Campbell v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, No. 1
...right to jury trial should be jealously guarded and preserved by the courts, whether granted by constitution or statutes." Rothweiler, 100 Ariz. at 47, 410 P.2d at...
-
Benitez v. Dunevant, No. CV-98-0540-PR.
...crimes; (b) the severity of the potential penalties made available by statute; and (c) the moral quality of the offense. See Rothweiler, 100 Ariz. at 47, 410 P.2d at ¶ 8 The application of these factors does not follow a set formula. However, we held in State ex rel. McDougall v. Strohson t......
-
Manic v. Dawes, No. 2 CA-CV 2005-0128.
...§ 28-1381(F) to create a statutory right to a jury trial that parallels the constitutional right to a jury trial. See Rothweiler, 100 Ariz. at 47, 410 P.2d at ¶ 13 Moreover, as Division One pointed out in Smith, § 22-320 governs trial procedures in justice court, while § 28-1381 is a substa......
-
Raye v. Jones, No. 1 CA-SA 03-0001.
...made available by statute; and (3) the moral quality of the offense. Benitez, 198 Ariz. at 93, ¶ 7, 7 P.3d at 102 (citing Rothweiler, 100 Ariz. at 47, 410 P.2d at 486). The court stated that the most significant factor among the three is the maximum potential penalty authorized by the statu......
-
Campbell v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, No. 1
...right to jury trial should be jealously guarded and preserved by the courts, whether granted by constitution or statutes." Rothweiler, 100 Ariz. at 47, 410 P.2d at...