State v. Bartky
| Decision Date | 28 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1,CA-CR,s. 1 |
| Citation | 16 Ariz.App. 421,493 P.2d 1226 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Richard Paul BARTKY, and Larry Allen Starnes, Appellants. 352, 1 355. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Wilson & Russin, by Alexander Russin, Holbrook, for appellant Starnes.
These appeals follow pleas of guilty, judgments of guilt and sentences and probation.
We first consider a claim of error in relation to one additional Navajo County Superior Court case. Bartky urged error in a supposed failure to establish a factual basis for the pleas of guilty in relation to two counts, each count charging the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Our search of the records on appeal failed to disclose a charge of contributing in any of the formal criminal charges which are before us. The Judges of this Court conferred and addressed a letter to the Clerk of the Superior Court for Navajo County, with a copy to each counsel, making inquiry as to the above charge. The reply established that the contributing charges were contained in Navajo County Superior Court cause number 3873 and that on the pleas of guilty the appellants were adjudged guilty and sentenced to the time theretofore served. Neither of the appellants appealed from that cause.
In 1 CA-CR 352 (Navajo County No. 3891) both Starnes and Bartky were charged in a two-count information, Count One being possession of marijuana alleged to have occurred on 30 August 1970 and Count Two being possession of marijuana for sale alleged to have occurred on 30 August 1970.
In 1 CA-CR 353 (Navajo County No. 3892) both defendants were charged with the offense of escape from a Navajo County jail alleged to have occurred on 4 September 1970.
In 1 CA-CR 354 (Navajo County No. 3893) both defendants were charged with the grand theft of an automobile alleged to have occurred on 4 September 1970.
In 1 CA-CR 355 (Navajo County No. 3894) Starnes was charged with burglary in the first degree alleged to have occurred on 4 August 1970.
Unless the context of this opinion otherwise indicates, further references to case numbers will be to the Court of Appeals case numbers.
The defendants both pled guilty to all charges in CR--352, CR--353 and CR--354. Starnes pled guilty to the charge in CR--355. There was a plea bargaining which was reported by a court reporter and the plea-bargaining proceedings were transcribed. It was agreed to recommend to the trial court that each of the defendants be sentenced to 4 1/2 to 5 years on each count to run concurrently in connection with CR--352 and CR--353 and that each defendant would be given probation in CR--354. Starnes was to receive the same concurrent sentence in CR--355. It was further recommended that both be sentenced to time served in connection with the hereinbefore mentioned contributing case. This recommendation was adopted and followed by the trial court.
The trial judge announced that he would approve the plea bargaining as to Bartky but that in view of Starnes' record he would not accept the recommendation. The trial court then advised Starnes that he had the privilege of withdrawing his pleas of guilty and standing trial. Starnes declined to withdraw his pleas of guilty and elected to have his several pleas of guilty remain.
Bartky was adjudged guilty of the several offenses before us and given concurrent 4 1/2 to 5 years sentences for possession, for possession for sale, and for jail escape. In relation to the offense of grand theft, the imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed in 8 years probation.
Starnes was adjudged guilty of the several offenses before us and given concurrent sentences of 5 to 5 1/2 years for possession We have examined the record and find that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- DOUBLE AA BUILDERS v. GRAND STATE CONST.
-
State v. Cassius
...See also, State v. Horton, 108 Ariz. 16, 492 P.2d 395 (1972); State v. George, 108 Ariz. 5, 491 P.2d 838 (1971), and State v. Bartky, 16 Ariz.App. 421, 493 P.2d 1226 (1972). In spite of the seeming simplicity of this statute and the test, judicial interpretation and application to a given s......
-
C. R. Fedrick, Inc. v. Borg-Warner Corp.
... ... Furthermore, for us the "(a)nalysis by a district judge of the law of the state in which he sits ... is entitled to great weight ... That determination 'will be accepted on review unless shown to be clearly wrong.' " ... ...
-
Ivey's Plumbing & Elec. v. Petrochem Maintenance
... ... —G-D and Petrochem—are unenforceable because of the Mississippi statute of frauds pertaining to the sale of goods as contained in the state's Uniform Commercial Code, § 75-2-201, Miss.Code Ann. (1972), and set forth below. 2 Concededly, both G-D and Petrochem 463 F. Supp. 550 are ... ...