State v. Leuck, 10282--PR
| Decision Date | 10 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 10282--PR,10282--PR |
| Citation | 481 P.2d 842,107 Ariz. 49 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael Duane LEUCK, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, James H. Kemper, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
Michael Duane Leuck hereafter referred to as defendant, was sentenced on August 12, 1969 upon his plea of guilty to possession of marijuana to serve no less than four nor more than eight years in the Arizona State Prison. From his conviction and sentence he filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals. That Court first issued an opinion and order reversing the trial court on the ground of failure to comply with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 then vacated its order on the ground that Boykin error could not be reached by appeal in the absence of a prior application to the trial court to vacate the guilty plea.
On July 31, 1969 defendant and Vincent Daniel Midey together with their counsel appeared before the court and the state moved to amend an information which had been filed on April 10, 1969 charging possession of marijuana, a felony, to possession of marijuana, which is an open-end charge under the same statute. The following inquiry was made by the court.
The trial court further examined the defendant to determine that he understood that he was waiving his right to trial by jury, to confront and cross-examine witnesses and whether any threats or promises had been made, to which he responded that he understood, and that no threats or promises had been made to induce his change of plea.
In his appeal the defendant raises the question of whether the change of plea was made freely or voluntarily, or whether it was induced by promises. He also urges that the sentence was excessive.
Defendant was represented by counsel of his own choosing and stated that his attorney had gone over the matter of his change of plea with him. It was not necessary under these circumstances that the trial judge advise him of the range of sentence. Upon the record it is apparent that as a result of a plea bargain the state agreed to amend the information so that the trial court could exercise its discretion to treat the offense as either a felony or misdemeanor without further recommendation from the state. It was stipulated that if the plea was withdrawn by defendant he waived any right to object to the reinstatement of the original information. Such agreements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arnett
...153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976); Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1958); State v. Leuck, 107 Ariz. 49, 481 P.2d 842 (1971). The death penalty is not the type of punishment which may never be imposed, and the character of the individual offender i......
-
Thomas v. Leverette
... ... Leverette, Warden of the West Virginia State Penitentiary. The appellant contends that at the time of his arrest and conviction on a charge of armed robbery he was entitled to a hearing to ... ...
-
State v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
...interest." In re J.G., N.S., and J.T., 674 A.2d at 632. We do not "pass judgment upon the wisdom of legislation." State v. Leuck, 107 Ariz. 49, 51, 481 P.2d 842, 844 (1971). To pass constitutional muster, a statute need not provide the best means to the State's end; it need only provide a m......
-
State v. Shrum
...his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See, e.g., State v. Sullivan, 107 Ariz. 98, 482 P.2d 861 (1971); State v. Leuck, 107 Ariz. 49, 481 P.2d 842 (1971). After the legislature abolished direct appeals for pleading defendants, A.R.S. § 13-4033(B) (Supp.1992), Rule 32.1 was amended to......