State v. Ferrell
| Decision Date | 29 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2312,2312 |
| Citation | 499 P.2d 109,108 Ariz. 394 |
| Parties | STATE of Aizona, Appellee, v. Robert Joseph FERRELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Mary Z. Chandler, Asst. Atty Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Public Defender by William C. Blakeley, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
Defendant, Robert Joseph Ferrell, appeals from a judgment of guilt entered against him based upon his plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13--641 and 13--643 as amended 1967. Defendant was sentenced to not less than 15 nor more than 25 years in prison.
The facts necessary to determine this appel are briefly as follows: In October of 1970 defendant was charged with one count of robbery and one count of assault with a deadly weaon. In open court defendant pleaded gulty to the charge of robbery, and in return the charge of assault with a deadly weapon, as well as two other pending criminal cases against the defendant, were dismissed. As required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), the trial court properly advised the defendant of the rights he was waiving and also the consequences of the plea. Defendant stated in open court he understood the possible sentence involved and that he was entering the plea voluntarily without any threats or promises. The trial court established a factual basis for the crime and accepted the plea. Defendant was subsequently adjudged guilty and sentenced to the term above mentioned. Relying on Boykin and Federal Rule 11, defendant contends on appeal that in addition to the above requirements the trial court should have explained the particular elements of the crime charged, robbery, in order to determine whether the defendant understood the nature of the offense charged against him. Defendant argues that the trial court failed to do this, and this failure is reversible error.
We have reviewed the record and specifically this issue and find no error to have been committed.
We held in State v. Williker, 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465 (1971) that our courts, to comply with Boykin, must find the plea of guilty to be made voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly. We further held that strict compliance with Federal Rule 11 is not required saying '(i)t is adherence to the spirit of Federal Rule 11 and not necessarily the literal observance of its provisions that is required by the mandate of Boykin v. Alabama, supra.'
In our recent case of State v. Phillips, 108 Ariz. 335, 498 P.2d 199, filed June 15, 1972, we held that it was not necessary that the trial judge apprise the defendant of the specific legal elements of the offense. The requirement that the record show that the defendant understands the nature of the offense may be established in a manner other than by reciting the elements of the offense. In Phillips we cited with approval State v. Kuhlman, 15 Ariz.App. 359, 488 P.2d 996 (1971), which held that it was not necessary for the court to recite the legal elements of the offense when the defendant had admitted, under questioning by the trial court, the acts constituting the elements of the offense charged.
In this case, at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lambert, 20214
...lack of precise language in the record expressing these considerations is not of itself a valid reason for reversal. State v. Ferrell, 108 Ariz. 394, 499 P.2d 109 (1972). The last issue before us is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The......
-
State v. Ohta
...17.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and .boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). State v. Ferrell, 108 Ariz. 394, 499 P.2d 109 (1972). Appellant urges that the trial judge abused his discretion when he refused upon the request of appellant's counsel to ......
-
State v. Hall
...had admitted, under questioning by the trial court, the acts constituting the elements of the offense charged. " State v. Ferrell, 108 Ariz. 394, 395, 499 P.2d 109, 110 (1972). And: "The factual basis for the plea is, of course, to be distinguished from the determination by the court of the......
-
State v. DeGrate
...v. Montgomery, 109 Ariz. 34, 504 P.2d 935, 8 January 1973; State v. Phillips, 108 Ariz. 332, 498 P.2d 199 (1972); State v. Ferrell, 108 Ariz. 394, 499 P.2d 109 (1972); and State v. Kuhlman, 15 Ariz.App. 359, 488 P.2d 996 We have reviewed the entire record as required by § 13--1715 A.R.S., S......