State v. Bates
| Decision Date | 09 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CR,1 |
| Citation | 529 P.2d 1207,22 Ariz.App. 613 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. William Glen BATES, Appellant. 686. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The defendant, William Glen Bates, was charged with the crime of attempted robbery. The defendant, through the public defender, entered into a plea bargain whereby defendant agreed to plead to the charge of aggravated assault. At the time of his arraignment he entered a plea of no contest; the court later designated the charge a misdemeanor and sentenced the defendant to serve six months in the county jail. The defendant raises two alleged errors in this appeal.
1. The court failed to address the defendant personally in open court to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge and to determine that the defendant understood the nature of the charge as required by Rule 17.2, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 ARS.
2. The court failed to personally address the defendant in open court and determine that there was a factual basis for the plea as required by Rule 17.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 ARS.
Rule 17.2, subd. a, Rules of Criminal Procedure, reads:
'Before accepting a plea of guilty or no contest, the court shall address the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands the following:
a. The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered;'
The transcript shows that the trial judge meticulously explained defendant's constitutional rights and in the course of this explanation the following pertinent conversation transpired between the judge and the defendant:
Knowing the nature of the charge, the possible sentence, the constitutional rights you waive if you plead guilty, how do you plead to this charge? You plead no contest?
The preliminary hearing transcript which was submitted to the court after the defendant entered a plea of no contest shows that the defendant told his victim that he had a gun in his pocket and demanded the victim turn over a money box. Defendant claims he was only simulating possession of a gun and that he really did not have a gun in his pocket when he attempted to rob Robert Lyle.
It is our opinion that the trial judge did comply with the provisions of Rule 17.2, subd. a in that he personally advised the defendant of the nature of the charge and made an adequate determination that the defendant understood the charge. The judge not only formally advised him of the charge, but also informally attempted to explain, in layman's language, just what conduct constituted a legal assault. We do not believe the adoption of the new Rules of Criminal Procedure in this field of law overruled the common sense interpretations of prior Arizona appellate decisions.
The trial judge does not operate in a vacuum; he has every right to consider the fact that the defendant, in his own self-interest, entered into and signed a formal written plea bargain. The trial judge can use the transcript of the preliminary hearing to aid him in making his determination of the factual basis for the plea. See, State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mendiola
... ... We hold that it does not ... In arriving at this conclusion we recognize that a contrary result has been reached by Department A of this Court in State v. Rodriguez, 22 Ariz.App. 478, 528 P.2d 864 (1974), review granted February 4, 1975. Cf. State v. Bates, 22 Ariz.App. 613, 529 P.2d 1207. However, while we agree with Department A that error has been committed, for the reasons hereinafter set forth we do not believe that such error automatically mandates reversal ... At the time of the guilty plea hearing appellant was represented ... ...
-
State v. McGhee
...holding that the record did not disclose sufficient factual basis for the plea to confidence game charge. Later, in State v. Bates, 22 Ariz.App. 613, 529 P.2d 1207 (1975), this court affirmed a conviction on a plea of no contest to the charge of aggravated assault where the record supported......
-
State v. Page
... ... Arizona, however, has followed the position that if there was a factual basis for the more serious charge, a factual basis for the lesser charge need not be shown. State v. Bates, 22 Ariz.App. 613, 529 P.2d 1207 (1975) ... The issue presented by appellant has recently been discussed at length in the Court's opinion of State v. McGhee, 27 Ariz.App. 119, 551 P.2d 568 (1 CA-CR 948, filed June, 1976). That opinion does not preclude the pleading guilty to an ... ...
-
State v. Reynolds
... ... See, Alford, supra. The record does not show the 'strong evidence of guilt' required by Alford. In fact, it shows that appellant did not have an understanding of the nature of the offense ... We need not, in this case, determine whether the rule announced in State v. Bates, 22 Ariz.App. 613, 529 P.2d 1207 (1975), that is, that if there is a factual basis for the original charge, a factual basis for the lesser charge pled to need not be shown, or that stated in State v. Jackson, 14 Ariz.App. 591, 485 P.2d 580 (1971), that is, there must be a factual basis for the ... ...