State v. Blier
| Decision Date | 29 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3616,3616 |
| Citation | 113 Ariz. 501,557 P.2d 1058 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael Roland BLIER, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Anne W. Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
On February 19, 1975 appellant Michael Roland Blier entered a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary in the first degree. He was sentenced on March 10, 1975 to three to nine years in the Arizona State Prison. From the judgment and sentence he appeals, and we have accepted jurisdiction of that appeal pursuant to 17A A.R.S. Supreme Court Rules, rule 47(e)(5).
Appellant raises four issues in his appeal:
1. Was the competency hearing invalid?
2. Did the failure of the parties to comply with the 'written stipulation' clause of rule 11.5(a) invalidate the finding of competency?
3. Is his sentence invalid because no presentence report was prepared?
4. Was the plea of guilty invalid because no written plea agreement was filed?
After waiving a preliminary hearing, and entering a plea of not guilty at arraignment to cause number 83721, charging him with burglary, first degree, appellant, by his counsel, requested a mental examination pursuant to 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 11.2. The motion was granted, the examinations conducted, and the results transmitted to the court and parties. It was reported by both court-appointed doctors that the appellant was not only competent to stand trial, but was also sane at the time the crime was committed.
A competency hearing was scheduled by the court, as mandated by rule 11.5(a). It is clear, from the record, that both defense and state's counsel were present at this scheduled hearing. It is not clear whether the defendant was present. For purposes of this appeal, we will assume he was not.
The record also clearly reflects that at the competency hearing, counsel for both sides stipulated orally that they would submit the issue of the appellant's competency solely on the experts' reports. Rule 11.5(a) allows such a stipulation but requires that it be in writing. The rule does not specify whether defense counsel or defendant, or both, must sign the writing, but refers only to 'the parties' in this respect. In this case, both the attorneys and the court sought to circumvent this requirement by further agreeing on the record that, 'the transcript of the proceedings is a sufficient compliance with Rule 11.5(a) so far as a written stipulation is concerned.'
The court then found appellant competent to stand trial in this matter and in a At the change of plea appearance, appellant, advised of and acknowledging that a plea of guilty to the burglary charge in cause number 83721 would also serve as a basis to revoke his probation in cause number 80101, pleaded guilty as charged. At this hearing, the following exchange took place between defense counsel and the court:
revocation of probation matter which was also pending against appellant. That matter was cause number 80101. Pursuant to a request by defense counsel, the court also scheduled another appearance date for a change of plea by appellant, and further set that same day and time for a final revocation hearing in cause number 80101.
'Court (addressing the defendant): . . . Your attorney has indicated that he, upon discussion with you, would waive the time for sentencing in Cause 83721, there having been a pre-sentence report with an update on it submitted in Cause 80101. . . .'
The defendant, however, apparently changed his mind about waiving the time for sentencing, so another appearance date was scheduled for that purpose. At this later appearance, appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of three to nine years in both causes.
Appellant alleges that the entire competency hearing was invalid because (1) appellant was not present and a defendant has a right to be present at a competency hearing, (2) defense counsel cannot waive a defendant's presence at a competency hearing, (3) nor can he stipulate to the submission of the issue on the experts' reports without the defendant's express consent.
The defendant in a felony prosecution has the right to be present at any stage of the trial proceedings whenever his presence has a reasonably substantial relation to the full opportunity to defend against the charge. Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). We believe this maxim applies to a competency hearing. However, like so many other rights, the right to be present at a competency hearing may be waived. Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, supra; State v. Contreras, 112 Ariz. 358, 542 P.2d 17 (1975); 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 9.1. See also Fed.Rules of Crim.Proc. rule 48, 18 U.S.C.A.
This court has already decided that defense counsel may stipulate to the submission of the competency issue on the experts' reports without the express consent of the defendant appearing on the record, absent any indication in the record that the defendant is dissatisfied with his attorney. State v. Contreras, supra. We said therein,
112 Ariz. at 359, 542 P.2d at 18.
It is implicit from language and the holding in Contreras that if defense counsel has the general authority to make the waiver of the hearing itself, he certainly has general authority to waive the defendant's presence when there is going to be no actual hearing.
We hold that a defendant does have the right to be present at a rule 11 competency hearing, but that the defendant may waive that right, as may his counsel, absent any indication in the record that the defendant is dissatisfied with his legal representation.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 'WRITTEN STIPULATION' CLAUSE OF RULE 11.5(a)
Citing State v. Lee, 112 Ariz. 283, 541 P.2d 383 (1975), appellant contends that if counsel cannot, by words spoken in open court, avoid the necessity of filing a written plea agreement pursuant to 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 17.4(b), he also cannot, by words spoken in open court, avoid the necessity of filing a written stipulation, pursuant to rule 11.5(a). This argument ignores the purpose of rule 17.4(b), which is of constitutional magnitude, as opposed to the purpose of the 'writing' clause in rule 11.5(a), which is not.
State v. Lee, 112 Ariz. at 284, 541 P.2d at 384.
The terms of a plea agreement may be multitudinous and diverse, and it is constitutionally mandated by Boykin that the defendant thoroughly understand them. One way to assure the trial court of this understanding is to have the defendant actually see the terms in writing and agree to them by signing that writing.
The purpose of rule 11.5(a) is to require a competency hearing, unless it is waived by stipulation. There is not, in a rule 11.5(a) stipulation, the multitude of terms which the parties must have clarified and understood as there is with a plea agreement.
Further, a rule 11.5(a) stipulation, while important strategically, does not amount to anything nearly as final as a guilty plea. A guilty plea is a conviction; there is nothing left to the criminal procedure after that but sentencing. Boykin v. Alabama, supra. This result is an important distinction between rule 17.4(b) and 11.5(a).
The language of the two rules shows the difference in importance as well. Rule 17.4(b) reads:
'The terms of a plea agreement Shall be reduced to writing And signed by the defendant, his counsel, if any, and the prosecutor. . . .' (emphasis added).
Rule 11.5(a) says:
As can be seen, the language of the two rules differs considerably in strength and meaning because they differ in purpose and result. A plea agreement must be in writing and signed by a defendant because the defendant must understand his action leads to a final, irrevocable and severe result: conviction of a crime. A rule 11.5(a) stipulation requires a writing, signed by 'the parties,' merely to clarify and preserve the record of their intentions to waive a formal competency hearing. In this case, that intention Is clear from the record.
There is no requirement that the defendant himself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moody
...at 837. ¶ 48 Moreover, Moody appears to misperceive the record. Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.5(a) and State v. Blier, 113 Ariz. 501, 503, 557 P.2d 1058, 1060 (1976), require that any competency hearing be open to the parties and guarantee the right of the defendant to be present. A......
-
State v. Mincey
...mandates the preparation of a pre-sentence report except that discretion may be exercised where one already exists. In State v. Blier, 113 Ariz. 501, 557 P.2d 1058 (1976), we held that a sentencing court did not abuse its discretion by not requiring a pre-sentence report when there was one ......
-
State v. Cook
...of the trial. We recently resolved the issue of waiver of appellant's presence at competency-related hearings in State v. Blier, 113 Ariz. 501, 557 P.2d 1058 (1976). Since these facts fall within our holding in Blier, supra, appellant's allegations of error must fall. In Blier we were conce......
-
Williams v. State
...396 Mich. 408, 240 N.W.2d 722, 725 (1976); State v. Nevels, 192 Neb. 668, 223 N.W. 668, 669 (1974). See also, e.g., State v. Blier, 113 Ariz. 501, 557 P.2d 1058, 1060 (1976); People v. Harris, 28 Cal.3d 935, 171 Cal.Rptr. 679, 623 P.2d 240 (1981); People v. Hudson, 46 Ill.2d 177, 263 N.E.2d......