State v. Barnett, 3158
| Decision Date | 30 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3158,3158 |
| Citation | 112 Ariz. 210,540 P.2d 682 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Andrew BARNETT, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., Ronald L. Crismon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, Garth V. Smith, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
The appellant, Andrew Barnett, was convicted of the crime of kidnapping in violation of A.R.S. § 13--491 and was sentenced to a term of not less than ten years nor more than fifteen years in the Arizona State Prison.
The appellant's first contention is that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the State's motion to amend the information to add an allegation of a prior conviction. We do not agree. Rule 13.5(a) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure states that '(t)he prosecutor may amend an indictment, information or complaint to add an allegation of one or more prior convictions within the time limits of Rule 16.1(b).'
Rule 16.1(b) provides:
The motion was not untimely under Rule 16.1(b) because it was one contained in the omnibus hearing form and an omnibus hearing was never held. Rule 16.5(c) provides that '(a)fter reviewing the omnibus hearing form, the court, in its discretion, may vacate the hearing.' Because the rules do not provide a deadline for motions contained in the omnibus hearing form when no hearing is held, the matter was left to the sound discretion of the trial court. The prosecution properly noted its intent to present the motion in the omnibus hearing form, filed July 5, 1974. The form was signed by the attorneys for both sides and the trial judge. The motion was filed on July 12, 1974. The motion was granted at the outset of the trial twenty-four days later, on August 5, 1974.
The appellant is incorrect in his assertion that Rule 16.1(b) barred the instant motion because it was filed less than twenty days before the original trial date of July 15, 1974. That limitation applies only to certain motions not contained in the omnibus hearing form.
The appellant fails to assert that he was in any way prejudiced by the timing of the motion to add an allegation of prior conviction. The absence of a request in the omnibus hearing form for a list of the defendant's prior convictions indicates he was fully aware of what the prosecution would urge in its motion to amend the information. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to bar the motion on the ground it was untimely.
The appellant's second contention is that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for kidnapping. When considering whether the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence 'we do not decide whether we would reach the same conclusion as the jury,' but only whether 'there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion.' State v. Bearden, 99 Ariz. 1, 405 P.2d 885 (1965).
A.R.S. § 13--491 provides:
The victim testified at the trial that while he was unloading his delivery truck he was approached by the appellant who demanded his keys and stated 'I am going to blow your head off.' The appellant and his two accomplices then locked the victim in the rear of the truck, entered the cab and proceeded to drive out of the parking lot. The victim testified that he unsuccessfully attempted to escape but that '(t)here was no way out.' After proceeding two or three blocks the truck was stopped by two police officers who apprehended the appellant. The officers stated at the trial that they had witnessed the incident from a distance and gave testimony corroborating that given by the victim. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gretzler
...failure to comply with the rule as ground for retrial. See State v. Stoneman, 115 Ariz. 594, 566 P.2d 1340 (1977); State v. Barnett, 112 Ariz. 210, 540 P.2d 682 (1975); State v. Armenta, 25 Ariz.App. 62, 540 P.2d 1281 (1975). The continuances herein were obtained by Gretzler as a result of ......
-
State v. Johnson, 4151
...in Rule 8.2. If there is an excluded time, there is no prejudice resulting from the granting of the continuance. State v. Barnett,112 Ariz. 210, 540 P.2d 682 (1975). In the present case, a total time of 131 days elapsed between arraignment on August 18 and the swearing of the jury on Decemb......
-
State v. Stone
...the reviewing court to weigh the evidence and decide whether it would reach the same conclusion as the trier of fact. State v. Barnett, 112 Ariz. 210, 540 P.2d 682 (1975). Rather, the appellate court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resol......
-
State v. Lawrence, 3342-2
...probative facts to support the verdict. State v. Pittman, 118 Ariz. 71, 75, 574 P.2d 1290, 1294 (1978); Childs, supra; State v. Barnett, 112 Ariz. 210, 540 P.2d 682 (1975). Considering all the evidence, we find that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. We have thoroughly r......