State v. McFord
| Decision Date | 25 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CR,1 |
| Citation | 132 Ariz. 132,644 P.2d 286 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Respondent, v. Leonard L. McFORD II, Petitioner. 5470 PR. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Petitioner McFord entered a plea of guilty to a charge of second degree murder on May 4, 1976. The plea was entered pursuant to a plea agreement which included the following provisions:
The defendant understands that by entering into this agreement and pleading guilty as provided for herein, he will be giving up and waiving any and all motions, defenses, objections or requests which he has made or raised, or which he could assert hereafter, to the Court's entry of judgment against him and imposition of a sentence upon him, and he understands that by pleading guilty he will be giving up his right to a trial by jury, to confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses, his privilege against self-incrimination, and his right to court appointed counsel.
The defendant admits that there is a substantial possibility that he would be convicted of 1st Degree Murder should he proceed to trial and is therefore entering his plea of guilty to 2nd Degree Murder pursuant to this plea agreement.
Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed and denial of his first petition for postconviction relief was sustained in State v. McFord, 115 Ariz. 246, 564 P.2d 935 (App.1977). Petitioner has subsequently filed a series of Rule 32 petitions, all of which have been either dismissed or denied. Petitioner's plea agreement and the trial court's denial of his fourth and fifth petitions based upon allegations of newly discovered evidence were sustained in State v. McFord, 125 Ariz. 377, 609 P.2d 1077 (1980). Petitioner now seeks review of the trial court's summary dismissal of his seventh petition.
Petitioner asserts that his latest petition should not have been dismissed in view of the fact that the State's response was late; that the decision in United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968), indicates that his plea was coerced; and that the firm which represents indigents charged with criminal offenses in Coconino County is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carriger
...defendant has had a fair trial. Once decided, the court's docket will not be filled with repetitious actions. See State v. McFord, 132 Ariz. 132, 644 P.2d 286 (App.1982) (seventh Rule 32 petition dismissed). Because the appeal is so important, the courts are charged with informing the defen......
-
Campbell v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
...where justice ran its course and yet went awry," Montgomery, 178 Ariz. at 87, 870 P.2d at 1183 (quoting State v. McFord, 132 Ariz. 132, 133, 644 P.2d 286, 287 (App.1982)), "Rule 32 proceedings are not designed to afford ... an automatic delayed appeal." Scrivner, 132 Ariz. at 54, 643 P.2d a......
-
Tschimperle v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
... ... Independent State Bank of Minnesota (Independent State Bank) provides investment services to its member banks. Independent State Bank sent literature to its member ... ...
- McCollum v. Insurance Co. of North America, 1