State v. Herndon, 2305

Decision Date05 March 1973
Docket NumberNo. 2305,2305
Citation109 Ariz. 147,506 P.2d 1041
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Stephen Louis HERNDON, Appellant.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Peter M. Van Orman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.

HAYS, Chief Justice.

Defendant, Stephen Louis Herndon, was charged with two counts of kidnapping, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of theft of a motor vehicle. The latter three counts, plus an allegation of prior conviction of second degree burglary, were dismissed upon entry of a plea of guilty to the two kidnapping charges. Defendant was sentenced to from nine to ten years on each count to run concurrently.

One question is presented on appeal: Was there a valid acceptance of defendant's guilty plea under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), when the court did not advise defendant of the elements of the charge against him and did not ascertain that the defendant understood the nature of the charges against him.

At the plea hearing on February 1, 1971, the court examined defendant and ascertained that he was nineteen years old, had a tenth grade education, and worked as an electrician. Herndon was advised that the range of punishment for kidnapping was one to ten years and that the sentences could run to a maximum of twenty years. The court advised defendant of his right to a jury trial, of his privilege against self-incrimination and of his right to cross-examination. In determining whether defendant understood the charge against him, the following exchange took place:

THE COURT: Do you understand that by Count 1 of the information in this case that you are charged with the crime of kidnapping, a felony?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That in particular Count 1 of the information charges that on or about November 2, 1970, in the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, that you did kidnap one Anna Thea Bogdanovich, in violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you fully understand the charge against you in Count 1 of the information?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do you further understand that by Count 2 of the information that you are charged with the crime of kidnapping, a felony, that in particular Count 2 of the information charges that on or about November 2, 1970, in the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, that you kidnapped one Thomas Stuart Verbil, in violation of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Ovante
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • January 11, 2013
    ...held that it is sufficient that the court, not the defendant, satisfy itself of the factual basis for the plea.” State v. Herndon, 109 Ariz. 147, 148, 506 P.2d 1041, 1042 (1973). The trial court was not required to explain the distinction between first and second degree murder and was free ......
  • State v. Varela
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1978
    ...the trial court may accept a guilty plea, it must satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea. State v. Herndon, 109 Ariz. 147, 148, 506 P.2d 1041, 1042 (1973). Such a factual basis must be present for each element of the crime charged. State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. 453, 455, 543 P......
  • State v. Reynolds
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1976
    ...defendant of all of the elements of the charge against him, State v. Anderson, 109 Ariz. 158, 506 P.2d 1052 (1973); State v. Herndon, 109 Ariz. 147, 506 P.2d 1041 (1973), where the defendant indicates that he did not have the requisite intent, it is particularly incumbent upon the trial cou......
  • State v. Alderete
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 2018
    ...held that it is sufficient that the court, not the defendant, satisfy itself of the factual basis for the plea." State v. Herndon, 109 Ariz. 147, 148 (1973). Thus, a defendant's "understanding of the legal terminology is not determinative." State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180, ¶ 17 (2013).¶4 To ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT