State v. Muniz-Caudillo
| Decision Date | 29 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 2,A,MUNIZ-CAUDILL,2 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Juan Antonioppellant. 94-0377. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellant was tried by a jury in absentia and found guilty of unlawful offer to sell a narcotic drug, unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony drug offense, and conspiracy to commit a class two felony. Appellant was arrested almost one year after the trial's conclusion and he was sentenced to presumptive, concurrent prison terms of four years on the possession of a deadly weapon conviction and seven years on the remaining convictions. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that appellant had voluntarily waived his right to be present at his trial.
The relevant facts are as follows. Appellant was charged by indictment on December 13, 1991. He was subsequently released to the custody of pretrial services. He was arraigned on December 27, 1991, at which time a not guilty plea was entered on appellant's behalf and a pretrial conference was set for February 20, 1992. Additionally, appellant received a copy of the arraignment minute entry which modified the conditions of his release to require him to be present at the pretrial conference.
On February 11, a bench warrant was issued because appellant had failed to comply with the conditions of his release to pretrial services. Appellant did not appear for his pretrial conference on February 20 and counsel informed the court that he had not had contact with him. Pursuant to Pima County Local Rule 28, 17B A.R.S., the court set the case for trial on May 5. After numerous continuances, the trial eventually commenced on August 4 and proceeded to judgment in appellant's absence. Appellant was later arrested on a bench warrant and had an initial appearance on June 7, 1994. He was sentenced on July 13 and filed a timely appeal. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to go forward with appellant's trial in absentia.
The trial court may infer that a defendant's absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear. State v. Tudgay, 128 Ariz. 1, 623 P.2d 360 (1981); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 9.1, 17 A.R.S. While appellant did not have actual notice of his original trial date or any of the continued trial dates, the record shows that appellant was told by the judge: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pinkney v. State
...his absence was, indeed, voluntary." Id. at 463, 482 S.E.2d at 884. Arizona imposes similar requirements. In State v. Muniz-Caudillo, 185 Ariz. 261, 914 P.2d 1353, 1354 (App.1996), the Arizona Court of Appeals noted: "The trial court may infer that a defendant's absence is voluntary if the ......
-
Salazar v. Ryan, CV-13-01542-TUC-BGM
...duty to maintain contact with his or her attorney and to appear in court." Id., Exh. "O" at 3 (citing State v. Muniz-Caudillo, 185 Ariz. 261, 262, 914 P.2d 1353, 1354 (Ct. App. 1996)). Accordingly, the court of appeals concluded that there was no error in the Rule 32 court's findings "that ......
-
State v. Walker
...143, 901 P.2d at 1173. Thus, a defendant's knowledge of the trial date is not the sine qua non of voluntary absence. See Muniz-Caudillo, 185 Ariz. 261, 914 P.2d 1353 (trial judge did not abuse its discretion even though defendant did not have actual notice of trial date); see also Ochoa, 18......
-
State v. Whitley
...for an abuse of discretion." State v. Reed, 196 Ariz. 37, 38, 992 P.2d 1132, 1133 (App.1999); see also State v. Muniz-Caudillo, 185 Ariz. 261, 262, 914 P.2d 1353, 1354 (App.1996) (reviewing the trial court's decision to go forward with the defendant's trial in absentia for abuse of ¶ 5 Crim......