State v. Foster, 2380
| Decision Date | 12 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2380,2380 |
| Citation | 504 P.2d 48,109 Ariz. 14 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Gary Paul FOSTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Louis A. Moore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Anthony J. Raineri, Scottsdale, for appellant.
Defendant, Gary Paul Foster, was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale on June 9, 1970. He entered a plea of not guilty to both counts on July 6, 1970. On May 5, 1971, in response to an apparent plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to count two, possession of marijuana for sale, and count one was dismissed. On May 18, 1971, he was sentenced to from five to ten years.
The factual context in which the case arose follows: On May 7, 1970, Foster and a friend were arrested in a pickup truck in Phoenix. A search of the truck revealed some 66 kilos of marijuana and a number of pills believed to be dangerous drugs. A search warrant for Foster's residence was obtained and some loose marijuana plus nineteen additional kilos were seized.
Foster raises two questions on appeal. First, did his plea satisfy the requirement of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), that a guilty plea be knowingly and intelligently made. Second, did the trial judge fulfill the requirement that befroe accepting a guilty plea he must be satisfied that a factual basis for the plea exists. In response to defendant's first contention, a review of the record clearly demonstrates that the plea was voluntarily and intelligently made. At the hearing at which Foster changed his plea, the judge read count two to the defendant and the defendant confirmed that he had discussed the guilty plea with his lawyer. In response to a series of questions by the judge, the defendant stated that he was thirty years old, that he had a high school education, that he understood the nature of the proceeding against him, that he understood right from wrong, and that he understood that by pleading guilty he waived any right to trial by jury. After informing the defendant of the possible range of the sentence and telling the defendant that no recommendations were binding on the court, the defendanty stated: After responding to defendant's question concerning the sentencing date, the court found 'that the defendant's plea of guilty is being made voluntarily and intelligently with the understanding of the consequences, and that no promises of immunity or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Varela
...including presentence reports, preliminary hearing reports, admissions of the defendant, and from other sources. State v. Foster, 109 Ariz. 14, 15, 504 P.2d 48, 49 (1972); State v. Logan, 15 Ariz.App. 457, 459, 489 P.2d 304, 306 (1971). The record must contain a sufficient factual foundatio......
-
State v. Garcia
...time sentence was imposed determines that the plea was not supported on the record by an adequate factual basis. See State v. Foster, 109 Ariz. 14, 504 P.2d 48 (1972); State v. Kuhlman, 15 Ariz.App. 359, 488 P.2d 996 (1971). Where, as here, the factual basis for a plea of guilty is insuffic......
-
State v. Reynolds
...judge who accepted the guilty plea, the factual basis for a guilty plea may be determined any time prior to sentencing. State v. Foster, 109 Ariz. 14, 504 P.2d 48 (1972). Since the presentence report was available to the sentencing judge and the sentencing judge heard a request for appellan......
-
State v. Carman, 1
...(1972); State v. Chrishon, 17 Ariz.App. 337, 497 P.2d 844 (1972); State v. Reynolds, 106 Ariz. 47, 470 P.2d 454 (1970); State v. Foster, 109 Ariz. 14, 504 P.2d 48 (1972). It appears the trial judge did not read a formal list of defendant's rights; however, he did advise the defendant of his......