State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 02 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2023,2023 |
| Citation | 108 Ariz. 116,493 P.2d 498 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. John Nick JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Paul J. Prato, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Public Defender by James H. Kemper, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
On July 11, 1968, an information was filed in the Superior Court for Maricopa County charging the defendant with two felonies: Count One, assault with the intent to commit murder, and Count Two, robbery. The information also alleged two prior felony convictions. Defendant initially pleaded not guilty to each count and denied the allegations of the prior convictions but thereafter, on September 9, 1968, after interrogation by the court, pleaded guilty to robbery and admitted the prior convictions. Count One, alleging assault with intent to commit murder, was dismissed. We granted defendant's motion for delayed appeal for the reason that he was not advised of his right to take an appeal.
On September 26, 1968, the defendant was orally sentenced in this language:
'The judgment will be you are guilty of robbery, and as punishment for that offense, the Court sentences you to serve a term in the Arizona State Prison of not less than 25 nor more than 30 years.'
However, on October 2, 1968, the court signed and entered a written judgment in which it adjudged defendant guilty of 'ROBBERY, a felony, (with Prior Conviction).'
He complains of this discrepancy, contending that because the oral pronouncement of sentence did not include a finding that the defendant had suffered a previous conviction, it was improper for the court to sentence him under Arizona's increased punishment statutes. In Arizona, robbery is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than five years, A.R.S. § 13--643, as amended. Upon defendant's plea of guilty, the court could, therefore, have imposed a sentence for any term of years of not less than five, up to and including life imprisonment, cf. State v. Lewis, 107 Ariz. 163, 483 P.2d 1402 (1971). The twenty-five to thirty year sentence would be a legal sentence by force of § 13--643. But since robbery with a prior conviction is punishable in the state prison for not less than a minimum of ten years, A.R.S. § 13--1649, as amended, the sentence could have been imposed and would be a legal sentence under § 13--1649.
Since the minimum sentence was twenty-five years, a legal sentence under either statute, there is no particular reason to believe that the court imposed the sentence because of the enhanced punishment provisions of § 13--1649 for a prior conviction. The inference is to the contrary. If the court felt compelled to enhance defendant's punishment solely by reason of this latter statute, it could have fixed the minimum at ten years.
But, irrespective, by Rule 325 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., a judgment is complete and valid when it is orally pronounced by the court and entered in the minutes. Nothing further is necessary and a written judgment is not required. State v. Dowthard, 92 Ariz. 44, 373 P.2d 357. Accordingly, if there were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whitman
...controls over the minutes or written judgment, State v. Jefferson, 108 Ariz. 600, 601, 503 P.2d 942, 943 (1972); State v. Johnson, 108 Ariz. 116, 118, 493 P.2d 498, 500 (1972), and that judgment and sentence are final upon oral pronouncement, with changes generally prohibited thereafter. St......
-
State v. Bolding
...and the sentence thereon are complete and valid as of the time of their oral pronouncement in open court.”); State v. Johnson, 108 Ariz. 116, 118, 493 P.2d 498, 500 (1972) (judgment complete after oral pronouncement and entry in minutes); cf. State v. Van Arsdale, 133 Ariz. 579, 580, 653 P.......
-
State v. Fayle, 1
...consecutively. The Arizona Supreme Court, relying on Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874), and State v. Johnson, 108 Ariz. 116, 493 P.2d 498 (1972) held that the attempt to increase a punishment after the imposition of a valid sentence constitutes double jeopardy. The......
-
State v. Bolding
...conviction and the sentence thereon are complete and valid as of the time of their oral pronouncement in open court."); State v. Johnson, 108 Ariz. 116, 118, 493 P.2d 498, 500 (1972) (judgment complete after oral pronouncement and entry in minutes); cf. State v. Van Arsdale, 133 Ariz. 579, ......