State v. Huante, 2940
| Decision Date | 17 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2940,2940 |
| Citation | 527 P.2d 281,111 Ariz. 236 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Jiminez HUANTE, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
N. Warner Lee, Atty. Gen., by Teresa S. Thayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by John Foreman, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
The defendant pled guilty to the charge of armed robbery. Sentence was suspended and the defendant placed on probation for five years. One of the conditions of probation was that Huante serve six months in the Maricopa County Jail. While serving that time, he escaped. A petition to revoke probation was filed, a bench warrant issued and the defendant was arrested March 6, 1974.
Rule 27.7(a), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, states that a 'hearing to determine whether probation should be revoked shall be held before the sentencing court no less than 7 and mo more than 20 days after . . . the probationer's initial appearance' after arrest. The initial appearance was held March 8, 1974. This appeal raises the question of whether the revocation of the defendant's probation was valid because a preliminary hearing was held after 20 days had elapsed from the time of the initial appearance.
A preliminary hearing was set on the revocation petition for March 26, 1974. On March 21, 1974, the matter was continued to March 29, 1974, at the request of the probation officer. On that date, a supplemental petition to revoke was filed based on a second charge and the hearing was continued to April 5, 1974, again at the request of the probation officer. Defense counsel objected both times. At the preliminary hearing, the defendant admitted his escape from jail and the other charge was dropped. The defendant was sentence to serve not less than 5 nor more than 7 years at the Arizona State Prison.
As stated in the comments to Rule 27.7(a), the time limits are imposed to give the probationer time to prepare his defense and to protect him from 'lengthy unwarranted incarceration.' The time limits are not jurisdiction and if the above factors are taken into consideration, there is no cause for invalidating a petition to revoke where no prejudice is shown. There was no prejudice in this case. The delay was for cause and for no more than 8 days. The defendant was returned to the jail from which he had escaped, and thus was not exposed to 'lengthy unwarranted incarceration.'
The appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jameson
...and no showing of prejudice has been made. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S., 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); State v. Huante, 111 Ariz. 236, 527 P.2d 281 (1974); In re La Croix, 12 Cal.3d 146, 115 Cal.Rptr. 344, 524 P.2d 816 Appellant continues to argue that he was misled by the continu......
-
State v. Mattison
...sentenced to 2.5 years' incarceration, the same sentence she faced when she pled guilty to the four counts of forgery. See State v. Huante, 111 Ariz. 236, 237 (1974) (Rule 27 time limits allow a probationer to prepare his/her defense and protect a probationer from a lengthy sentence).¶10 Th......
-
State v. Williams
...the time limit prescribed in Rule 27.7 is not jurisdictional. State v. Belcher, 111 Ariz. 580, 535 P.2d 1297 (1976); State v. Huante, 111 Ariz. 236, 527 P.2d 281 (1976). In line with the non-jurisdictional status of the prescribed time limit our courts have, in varying factual contexts, hel......
-
State v. Belcher
...is not jurisdictional and in the absence of a prejudice we will not reverse the trial court's decision to revoke. State v. Huante, 111 Ariz. 236, 527 P.2d 281 (1974). The United States Supreme Court has held that due process requires that a revocation hearing must be held within 'a reasonab......