State v. Johnson
| Citation | 458 P.2d 955,105 Ariz. 21 |
| Decision Date | 25 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1946,1946 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Tom JOHNSON, Appellant, |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Tom Johnson, in pro. per.
Vernon B. Croaff, Former Public Defender, by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.
Tom Johnson, hereinafter referred to as Defendant, appeals from an order of the Superior Court of Maricopa County denying his Motion for an Order Nunc Pro Tunc to amend his sentence. He contends that the trial court should have given him credit for the time he served under the previous sentence for the same offense.
Defendant was found guilty of two (2) counts of the illegal sale of marijuana and sentenced as follows:
'It is the judgment and sentence of the court that the defendant on count one is sentenced to serve a term of not less than 12 nor more than 15 years in the Arizona State Penitentiary at Florence, Arizona; and on count two, defendant sentences (sic) to serve a term of not less than 12 years nor more than 15 years in the Arizona State Penitentiary, said sentences are to run concurrently.'
The conviction was reversed on appeal, and the case was remanded for a new trial. Defendant was reconvicted and given the following sentence:
On appeal defendant's reconviction was affirmed. Two years thereafter, defendant filed the Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc Amend Commencement Date of Sentence which was denied.
Subsequent to the time of the trial court's pronouncement of sentence upon reconviction, the United States Supreme Court held that Punishment already exacted for an offense must be fully credited in imposing sentence upon a new conviction for the same offense. North Carolina v. Pearce (Simpson v. Rice), 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656. Specifically, the Court stated:
'We hold that the constitutional guarantee against multiple punishments for the same offense absolutely requires that punishment already exacted must be fully 'credited' 13 in imposing sentence upon
a new conviction for the same offense. If, upon a new trial, the defendant is acquitted, there is no way the years he spent in prison can be returned to him. But if he is reconvicted, those years can and must be returned--By subtracting them from whatever new sentence is imposed. (Emphasis added.)
It is noted that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lambright
...against double punishment "requires that punishment already exacted must be fully ‘credited.’ " See also State v. Johnson , 105 Ariz. 21, 22–23, 458 P.2d 955, 956–57 (1969) (relying on Pearce and finding defendant convicted and sentenced after first conviction and sentence reversed on appea......
-
State v. Kennedy
...of the increased sentence may be fully reviewed on appeal.' This Court has followed North Carolina v. Pearce, supra; State v. Johnson, 105 Ariz. 21, 458 P.2d 955. However, these cases pertain solely to time served under a prior conviction, and do not involve the question of credit for time ......
-
State v. Makal
...he cites Simpson v. Rice (sub. nom. North Carolina v. Pearce), 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), and State v. Johnson, 105 Ariz. 21, 458 P.2d 955 (1969). These two cases set forth the requirement, under the double jeopardy clause, that punishment already exacted must be fu......
-
State v. Madrid
...case. In CA-CR 509, we believe the defendant must be given credit for all prison time served for the same offense. State v. Johnson, 105 Ariz. 21, 458 P.2d 955 (1969); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 At the rehearing on the revocation of probation the t......