State v. Brown, 2168
Decision Date | 08 February 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 2168,2168 |
Citation | 493 P.2d 915,108 Ariz. 132 |
Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Walter Wayne BROWN, Appellant. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by William P. Dixon and Albert M. Coury, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Public Defender, by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
This case is before us on a delayed appeal from a sentences imposed after the defendant pleaded guilty to first degree burglary and attempted rape. His guilty pleas were the result of plea bargaining in which the state agreed to dismiss an allegation of prior conviction. Defendant was sentenced to five to seen years on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently and to commence with the date he was first incarcerated several months prior to sentencing.
On appeal, he contends that his pleas were neither voluntarily nor intelligently made, because the trial judge failed to inform him of the elements of the offenses charged or the maximum range of punishment possible, and failed to ascertain that he was in fact guilty of the charges.
The transcript of the proceedings shows that the following colloquy took place between the defendant, his counsel, the public defender, the county attorney, and the judge:
MR. BENNETT (Brown's attorney): Yes, Your Honor. I have discussed the change of plea with Mr. Brown. Advised the defendant that he could spend time in jail or even Florence or even possibility of probation. Made no promises of leniency or probation to Mr. Brown. Have not threatened the defendant in any manner. And after advising the defendant of this, he wishes to withdraw his plea of not guilty to amended information no. 55779, charging Count 1, burglary, and, Count 2, attempted rape, and formally enter a plea of guilty to this information.
I understand the State would drop the prior conviction at the time of sentencing, Your Honor.
MR. SWAN (County attorney): Your Honor, we will stipulate that the State will drop the prior conviction at the time of sentencing.
Burglary, yes.
The Court further finds that the pleas were voluntarily made, were intelligently made, and the Court further finds that the defendant through counsel and personally admits that he is guilty of the two charges.'
We need not decide whether the above-reported proceeding complies with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), since it took place several months before that decision, and we have held that Boykin is not retroactive. See, e.g., State v. Laurino, 106 Ariz. 586, 480 P.2d 342.
Defendant had retained counsel who had withdrawn prior to representation by the public defender. The latter's statement to the judge was that he had advised defendant that he 'could...
To continue reading
Request your trial