State v. Green
| Decision Date | 27 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 16 Ariz.App. 287,492 P.2d 1225 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Leroy James GREEN, Appellant. 272. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, by Jerry C. Schmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for appellee.
Charles W. Stokes, Casa Grande, for appellant.
Defendant below, Leroy James Green, appeals from a judgment and sentence resulting from his entry of a plea of guilty to the crime of forgery of a credit card, a felony, A.R.S. § 13--1074. The statutory penalty is not less than one nor more than five years. A.R.S. § 13--1645. On a plea of guilty, the defendant was sentenced to not less than two nor more than four years.
On March 8, 1971, Honorable E. D. McBryde, Judge of the Superior Court of Pinal County, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13--1621, ordered the defendant to the Arizona State Hospital for psychiatric examination by three competent medical doctors, and on April 1, 1971, defendant was ordered retained in the hospital for an additional thirty days for further medical study. Based on results from the State Hospital study indicating his probable competence, defendant was returned to jail to await further proceedings. A hearing was held on May 14, 1971 to determine defendant's competency. After this hearing, there was additional medical study. The defendant was found by the court to be able to assist in his own defense and to understand the nature of the proceedings against him. The case was duly set for trial before a jury.
Subsequently, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, after a plea bargain in which three of the four counts of forgery were dropped. The guilty plea was made to one count of forgery of a credit card. At a subsequent hearing on sentencing, defendant was advised of his rights, advised that it was a felony and advised that he could be sent to the Arizona State Prison on a plea of guilty. The record indicates that the defendant understood all of this at the time of sentencing. He was not coerced or induced to enter the plea and he was represented by counsel who was present at all times.
Defendant-appellant's brief raises one broad general question, that is, whether there was an abuse of discretion in the trial court's judgment and order. However, the brief also raises two other points--that of the defendant's competency and whether the requirements of Boykin, infra, were met. We will therefore deal with all three of these questions.
As to the competency of the defendant to stand trial or enter a plea, we believe there is little doubt. Defendant was represented by counsel at all times; a hearing was held; defendant was sent to the state hospital for study and evaluation where the doctors determined that he was competent to stand trial; and, at the subsequent hearing, further medical testimony was taken and it was again determined that the defendant was able and capable of standing trial. There is no question in our minds but what the defendant was competent for legal purposes so that the trial could proceed.
We have examined the transcript and the written reports of the physicians in coming to this conclusion. One of the physicians states, in part:
* * *
* * * 'It is my inpression (sic) that the patient does not now suffer from a mental illness and is able to understand the nature of...
To continue reading
Request your trial