State v. Canaday, 3912
| Decision Date | 15 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 3912,3912 |
| Citation | 569 P.2d 238,116 Ariz. 296 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Clyde M. CANADAY, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III, and Robert S. Golden, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Allen A. Haggard, Phoenix, for appellant.
Clyde M. Canaday, appellant herein, pled no contest to one count of burglary and one count of grand theft, pursuant to a plea agreement filed with the Maricopa County Superior Court on November 6, 1974. His appeal is before this court pursuant to rule 47(e)(5) of 17A A.R.S. Supreme Court Rules.
The first issue raised by appellant is that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss, sua sponte, the charges against him for failure of the state to comply with 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 8, Arizona's "speedy trial" rule.
A defendant waives any question regarding his right to a speedy trial by entering a valid guilty plea. State v. Miller, 110 Ariz. 304, 518 P.2d 127 (1974). This is true because the guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defenses. State v. Miller, supra. Likewise, a plea of no contest constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defenses. State v. Arnsberg, 27 Ariz.App. 205, 553 P.2d 238 (1976). Consequently, the speedy trial issue cannot now be raised on appeal.
The second issue raised is that appellant's sentence is unjust, excessive and unreasonable. Appellant argues that, because of his incarceration pending sentencing, and because he is unable to communicate well in writing, he was prevented from communicating effectively with the probation officer; that the sentencing judge clearly did not want to hear any mitigating circumstances in his behalf, and finally, that that judge did not "individualize" appellant's sentence because he took into consideration appellant's relationship with his codefendants, who were also appellant's brothers.
The complaints with regard to lack of effective communication with the probation officer and the trial judge not being willing to listen to his "mitigating circumstances" are belied by two facts. First, the presentence report contains a statement given the probation officer by the appellant, as well as an extensive social, educational and employment history, the information for which must have come, in large part, from appellant himself. There was no evidence presented to show appellant was unable to communicate with the probation officer.
Secondly, no hearing in mitigation was requested by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. New
...Ellsworth v. State, 258 Wis. 636, 639-640, 46 N.W.2d 746 (1951); Hoover v. State, 568 P.2d 404, 405 (Alas, 1977); State v. Canaday, 116 Ariz. 296, 569 P.2d 238 (1977).12 Defendants do not contest the validity of their pleas.13 See White, 411 Mich. 394, 308 N.W.2d 128 (Moody, J., concurring ......
-
State v. Flores
...thereafter raise independent claims relating to deprivation of constitutional rights that antedated plea); see State v. Canaday, 116 Ariz. 296, 296, 569 P.2d 238, 238 (1977). However, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, even by a guilty plea, and it may be raised at any time. Stat......
-
State v. Ellis
...have said many times, a defendant waives any question regarding his right to a speedy trial by entering a plea of guilty. State v. Canaday, Ariz., 569 P.2d 238 (1977); State v. Miller, 110 Ariz. 304, 518 P.2d 127 FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PLEA The appellant argues that the trial judge failed to......
-
State v. Carter
...P. 32.2(a)(3), his claims of an illegal search and insufficient evidence were waived by his change of plea. See State v. Canaday, 116 Ariz. 296, 296, 569 P.2d 238, 238 (1977). "Like a guilty plea a plea of no contest 'is an admission of guilt for the purposes of the case,'" because a defend......