State v. Logan
| Decision Date | 07 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CR,1 |
| Citation | 489 P.2d 304,15 Ariz.App. 457 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Ronald Lee LOGAN, Appellant. 331. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Paul Prato, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Public Defender by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered by the Superior Court after a plea of guilty by defendant Logan to an amended information charging him with the crime of possession of marijuana.
The crucial question is whether defendant's plea of guilty was accepted by the court in violation of the pronouncements in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) and in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). Defendant's contention is that the court did not properly advise defendant as to the nature of the charge or ascertain the factual background of the plea.
Defendant was charged with the crime of possession of marijuana for sale, a felony, by a complaint filed in the Northwest Phoenix Justice Court on April 15, 1970. Following a preliminary hearing defendant was bound over for trial in the Superior Court on this charge, and an information was thereafter filed. On arraignment in the Superior Court defendant pleaded not guilty and the case was set for trial. On the date of trial defendant appeared before the court with counsel at which time the State moved to file an amended information charging him with the crime of possession of marijuana in violation of A.R.S. § 36--1002.05 instead of § 36--1002.06 which referred to the original charge of possession of marijuana for sale.
The motion to file an amended information was granted, whereupon defendant requested leave to change his plea. The court, after ascertaining defendant's desire to plead guilty to the amended information, interrogated him concerning the matter and accepted a plea of guilty to the amended information. The court made findings that the defendant entered his plea knowingly, willingly and voluntarily.
We first consider whether defendant entered his plea with an understanding of the nature of the charge against him. We answer this question in the affirmative.
At the outset it should be noted that the court examined defendant and ascertained from him that he wanted to plead guilty to the amended information; that no promises or threats had been made to persuade him to do so. The court also advised him that he had a right to a jury trial and to confront the witnesses against him. Defendant stated he had a tenth-grade education. He also stated he understood that the charge could be either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending upon the court's sentence, and that the court could impose a sentence of up to ten years in prison.
Defendant was specifically asked by the court, 'Is it true that on or about the 14th day of April, 1970, you did possess marijuana?', the which he answered, 'Yes'. Bearing in mind the charge was changed from possession of marijuana for sale, for which he was bound over, to only possession of marijuana, the answer 'yes' could mean only one thing to an ordinary person, that is, that he knowingly was in possession of marijuana at that particular time. With the explanation of the type of crime this was and the possible penalties that could be meted out for this crime, it is most difficult for this Court to assume that he was not advised of the nature of the charge.
At this point a brief summary of the preliminary hearing would be helpful. This hearing revealed that based on information involving narcotics, the police officers obtained a search warrant for the apartment defendant was occupying, and that four or five officers were present when the search warrant was executed. At the time the officers appeared at the apartment they surrounded it, some staying at the front door. The officers yelled out, 'Police officers, open up, we have a search warrant.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Varela
...admissions of the defendant, and from other sources. State v. Foster, 109 Ariz. 14, 15, 504 P.2d 48, 49 (1972); State v. Logan, 15 Ariz.App. 457, 459, 489 P.2d 304, 306 (1971). The record must contain a sufficient factual foundation for the crime charged so that the court will "avoid the po......
- Tucson Title Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Herman
-
State v. Brooks, 2
...court need not determine the factual basis solely from a defendant's statements at the change of plea hearing. See State v. Logan, 15 Ariz.App. 457, 489 P.2d 304 (1971). A factual basis for a guilty plea may be established from the record as a whole. State v. Ybarra, 149 Ariz. 118, 716 P.2d......
-
State v. Rincon
...the entire record is put together there can be no question as to the presence of a factual basis for the plea. In State v. Logan, 15 Ariz.App. 457, 489 P.2d 304 (1971), we stated that we would consider '* * * the totality of the record at the time of judgment and sentencing.' 15 Ariz.App. a......