State v. Lamas
| Decision Date | 02 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1,CA-CR,s. 1 |
| Citation | 666 P.2d 94,136 Ariz. 349 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. Lee Roy LAMAS, Respondent. 6152-PR, 1 6153-PR. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
In its petition for review, the state seeks review of the trial judge's ruling setting aside the plea of guilty entered by respondent Lee Roy Lamas pursuant to a plea agreement on April 24, 1978.
Lamas and his two companions were originally charged in an indictment filed on February 9, 1978 (Cause No. CR-100897). Lamas was charged with kidnapping with intent to commit rape; assault with a deadly weapon; rape, first degree; and lewd and lascivious acts. An allegation of a prior conviction was later added to the indictment. In a plea agreement, Lamas pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon and rape, first degree. In return for the plea, the state agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and to withdraw the allegation of a prior conviction for assault with intent to commit rape in the related action (Cause No. CR-92650).
As punishment for the crime, Lamas was sentenced to concurrent 15 to 45-year terms. Because of the special sentencing conditions for assault with a deadly weapon under the former criminal code, Lamas was not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence, pardon or parole, until he had served the minimum sentence actually imposed.
On November 4, 1980, Lamas filed a petition for post-conviction relief and an evidentiary hearing was eventually held in 1982. Following the hearing, the judge ruled that Lamas' plea of guilty had been induced by his former counsel's promise that he would receive a five-year sentence and be eligible for good-time credits if he entered into the plea agreement. Following the trial judge's initial ruling on April 20, 1982, the state filed a motion for clarification, and a motion for rehearing. After a subsequent hearing on that motion, held on May 14, 1982, the trial judge again ruled that the plea agreement was entered into upon inadequate information relating to the sentence Lamas would receive.
At the evidentiary hearing, Lamas' former counsel, W. Clifford Girard, Jr. testified, as well as Lamas, two of his sisters, his father, and a minister acquainted with the family. Lamas and his family testified that Girard promised that if Lamas agreed to enter the guilty plea he would receive a five-year sentence. His trial counsel emphatically denied that any such promise was made.
At the hearing on May 14, 1982, the trial court made the following observations:
It remains my conviction on the basis of the evidence presented that the defense attorney for Mr. Lamas did not do an adequate job of informing him of what the sentence would be. Problem number one.
Problem number two: The promise of good time credits across the board for Mr. Lamas, coupled with the suggestion that he was going to get a five-year sentence resulting in the possibility that he would be released in two and a half years, I think, was grossly inadequate in view of the fact that he got a sentence many times greater than that and had to be given a sentence greater than that.
The third problem--those two problems are not necessarily fatal.
The third problem was that the sentencing judge at the time of the plea did not go into sufficient detail to correct all of those problems. I am convinced, Mr. Kennedy, that there was a problem with the assault with a deadly weapon. I am also at the moment pretty convinced that there was a problem with the rape charge.
Later, the county attorney attempted to clarify the judge's ruling and the following colloquy ensued:
Finally, the court made the following statement:
THE COURT: I have found inadequate advice given to Mr. Lamas by Mr. Girard regarding his five-year sentence, which I think is tantamount to a promise, and by Mr. Girard that he was going to receive a five-year sentence, that he would be eligible in an unqualified way for good time credits across the board on both the charges so he would be possibly eligible for release in two and a half years.
Had those matters been explicitly addressed by Judge O'Connor at the time of the sentencing in a way that Mr. Lamas could understand them, perhaps, it would not have been fatal.
Following the hearing and rulings on May 14, 1982, the trial judge set aside the guilty plea, ordered Lamas' immediate release from the Arizona State Prison and directed that he be returned to the custody of the Maricopa County Sheriff to await trial.
Initially, we note that at the May 14, 1982 hearing, the county attorney agreed that, at least with respect to the assault with a deadly weapon charge, the plea violated Rule 17.2, Ariz.R.Crim.P., and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). In the motion for rehearing, the county attorney objected to the court's finding that the involuntariness of the plea applied to both the assault with a deadly weapon count and the rape, first degree count.
The state's argument proceeded on the assumption that the only defect was that Lamas had not been advised of the special sentencing provision relating to the assault with a deadly weapon charge. The state assumed that because that charge was the only one that carried a special sentencing provision, it was the only count which was defective. Furthermore, the state argued that the plea itself was not defective because there was no prejudice shown to Lamas because of the sentence actually imposed, relying on State v. Ellis, 117 Ariz. 329, 572 P.2d 791 (1977). These were the only issues raised in the motion for rehearing.
We think a careful reading of the colloquy between the trial judge and counsel on May 14, 1982, and the court's subsequent rulings, leave little doubt but that the trial court found more than a technical violation of Rule 17, Ariz.R.Crim.P., and a failure to provide adequate, accurate information on special sentencing provisions. The state's argument fails to address the most significant and telling finding of the trial court--Lamas' guilty plea was induced by a promise made by his counsel that the maximum sentence he would receive if he agreed to plead guilty would be no more than five years and that with good time credits he would be out in less than three years.
Recently, the supreme court in State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 at 1224 (Ariz.Sup.Ct.1983), in defining "abuse of discretion" stated:
Something is discretionary because it is based on an assessment of conflicting procedural, factual or equitable considerations which vary from case to case and which can be better determined or resolved by the trial judge, who has a more immediate grasp of all the facts of the case, an opportunity to see the parties, lawyers and witnesses, and who can better assess the impact of what occurs before him. Where a decision is made on that basis, it is truly discretionary and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge; we will not second-guess.
(citations omitted). The facts regarding the promise of a maximum sentence of five years and Lamas' reliance thereon were all disputed matters at the hearing. The trial judge, after considering all of the testimony, chose to believe that Lamas had been promised a five-year maximum sentence and relied upon that promise in entering his plea of guilty.
We cannot say that the facts in this case demonstrate an abuse of discretion or that the evidence does not sufficiently support the trial court's findings. State v. Byers, 126 Ariz. 139, 141, 613 P.2d 299 (1980). The facts were conflicting and we must recognize that the trial judge had a more immediate grasp of all the facts of the case and an opportunity to see first-hand the parties, lawyers and witnesses. But as explained more fully below the trial judge failed to address one crucial fact necessary for the ultimate disposition of this matter. We now turn to discuss the legal issues presented by the trial judge's ruling.
The central finding of the trial judge was that Lamas received "inadequate advice" from his counsel when counsel made a "promise" that Lamas would receive a five-year sentence and would be eligible for good time credits. We must determine whether under such circumstances, Lamas is entitled to have his plea agreement set aside.
It is by now elemental that effective assistance of counsel is just as necessary at the plea bargaining stage as at trial. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 721, 68 S.Ct. 316, 322, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948). "Counsel is needed so that the accused may know precisely what he is doing, so that he is fully aware of the prospect of going to jail or prison, and so that he is treated fairly by the prosecution." Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 34, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 2011, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972). A guilty plea is a "grave and solemn act to be accepted only with care and discernment." Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anderson, 6622-PR
...bargaining stage as at trial. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 721, 68 S.Ct. 316, 322, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948); State v. Lamas, 136 Ariz. 349, 353, 666 P.2d 94, 98 (App.1983). Rule 17.5 governs withdrawal of pleas in Arizona and the standard to be applied. It reads as "Rule 17.5 Withdrawal ......
- State v. Webb, s. 2
-
State v. Lamas, 6207-PR
...denial of relief by the Court of Appeals in a post conviction proceedings under Rule 32, Rules of Criminal Procedure. State v. Lamas, 136 Ariz. 349, 666 P.2d 94 (App.1983) and Supplemental Memorandum Decision issued November 17, 1983 (No. 1 CA-CR 6152-PR and No. 1 CA-CR 6153-PR, consolidate......