State v. Lerner
| Decision Date | 21 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3492,3492 |
| Citation | 551 P.2d 553,113 Ariz. 284 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robin Cheryl LERNER, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer, III, and Galen H. Wilkes, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Murray Rauth, Scottsdale, for appellant.
Appellant, Robin Cheryl Lerner, was charged by information with the crime of possession of marijuana, a felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 36--1002.05. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the marijuana seized from her. The motion was denied. Appellant filed a request to reargue the motion to suppress. The court again heard oral argument on the motion, and the motion was again ordered denied. Subsequently, appellant executed a plea agreement whereby she withdrew her plea of guilty to the crime charged and entered a plea of guilty to the crime of possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. The plea was accepted and appellant was ordered to pay a fine in the sum of $50.00.
On this appeal, appellant has challenged the constitutionality of the search and seizure in four particulars. The state, however, has replied with the assertion that appellant, by virtue of her plea of guilty, is foreclosed to raise objections to the manner in which evidence forming the basis of the information was obtained.
We stated in State v. Murphy, 97 Ariz. 14, 15, 396 P.2d 250, 250--51 (1964), that '(w)hen a defendant voluntarily and knowingly pleads guilty at his trial this constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defenses . . .' and forecloses 'any inquiry into the matter of the alleged illegal search and seizure.' A review of authority from other jurisdictions on this subject indicates that only two states permit a defendant who has pleaded guilty to be entitled to appellate review of a denial of the defendant's motion to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence. People v. Lawson, 1 Cal.App.3d 729, 81 Cal.Rptr. 883 (1969); People v. Habel, 18 N.Y.2d 148, 272 N.Y.S.2d 357 (1966). In both of these instances, however, appellate review was specifically authorized by prescribed provisions in the states' respective codes of criminal procedure. Cal.Penal Code § 1538.5(m) (1967); N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 710.70(2) (1971). Without such a special statutory exception, the general rule on this issue has been well-summarized in 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 175 (1969), as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sims
...of the sentencing court)." (Pa. 351 A.2d at 286) See, e. g., McKinnon v. State, 526 P.2d 18 (Alaska 1974); State v. Lerner, 113 Ariz. 284, 551 P.2d 553 (1976) (by implication); People v. Laudermilk, 67 Cal.2d 272, 61 Cal.Rptr. 644, 431 P.2d 228 (1967), Cert. denied, 393 U.S. 861, 89 S.Ct. 1......
-
Schwartz v. State
...Alan Wright et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc.Crim. § 175 (1969)), or did not involve a deficient charging instrument, see State v. Lerner, 113 Ariz. 284, 551 P.2d 553 (1976). Thus, Morin does not provide authority for the proposition that a charging instrument failing to charge an element of the o......
-
State v. Snodgrass
...Compare State v. Arnsberg, supra (denial of suppression motion nonjurisdictional on appeal following no contest plea); State v. Lerner, 113 Ariz. 284, 551 P.2d 553 (1976) (denial of suppression motion nonjurisdictional following guilty plea); see also, State v. Hagen, 27 Ariz.App. 722, 558 ......
-
State v. Smith
...ultimately pled guilty to that count, and a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects. State v. Lerner, 113 Ariz. 284, 551 P.2d 553 (1976); State v. Murphy, 97 Ariz. 14, 396 P.2d 250 (1964).2 Now renumbered § 13-4013 B, effective October 1, 1978.3 "Rule 15.1 Disclos......