State v. Norris
| Decision Date | 20 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3708--PR,3708--PR |
| Citation | 113 Ariz. 558,558 P.2d 903 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Charles Franklin NORRIS, Sr., Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer, III, Teresa S. Thayer, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
Appellant Charles Franklin Norris, Sr., was charged with two counts of embezzlement in January, 1975. Four months later he entered a plea agreement with the Maricopa County Attorney's office to plead guilty to two counts of obtaining money or property by false pretense or confidence game, open end, in violation of A.R.S. § 13--312. In return, the embezzlement charges were to be dismissed.
The plea was entered on May 20, 1975 and the appellant sentenced in July, 1975 to not less than four and one-half nor more than five years on both counts, to be served concurrently.
An appeal was taken to the Arizona Court of Appeals on one issue only: wheter there was a factual basis established for the plea. The Court of Appeals, citing three other conflicting Court of Appeals decisions, which it tried to reconcile, affirmed appellant's conviction in a memorandum decision. It said therein:
(1 CA-CR 1408, filed August 17, 1976)
We granted a petition for review in order to clarify the law in this area, and resolve the conflicts raised by these differing Court of Appeals cases.
The cases we refer to, aside from the one before us, are State v. Jackson, 14 Ariz.App. 591, 485 P.2d 580 (1971); State v. Bates, 22 Ariz.App. 613, 529 P.2d 1207 (1975); and State v. McGhee, 27 Ariz.App. 119, 551 P.2d 568 (1976). Those three cases, and the case before us, seem to give conflicting views of what the test should be for a trial judge seeking to determine that there is a factual basis for a guilty plea or a no-contest plea when the original charge has been amended or reduced.
17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 17.3, requires the trial court to determine that there is a factual basis for a plea of guilty or no contest. In discussing the plain meaning of this rule, we have recently said:
'. . . (A) conviction on a plea of guilty cannot be sustained unless there is a factual basis to support each of the elements of the crime to which the plea is made. . . .' State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. 453, 455, 543 P.2d 441, 443 (1975).
We find Carr dispositive of the issue of determining factual basis, whether the defendant pleads to the original charge or to an amended or lesser charge. In either case, the trial judge must be satisfied that there is a factual basis to support all the essential elements of whatever charge the defendant pleads to. State v. Carr, supra.
The factual determination does not require a finding that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Reynolds, 25 Ariz.App. 409, 544 P.2d 233 (1976), but only '. . . strong evidence of actual guilt. . . .' North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 at 37, 91 S.Ct. 160 at 167, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 at 171 (1970).
Applying this test to the fact situation in issue, we must vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
One of the essential elements of A.R.S. § 13--312, frequently enumerated in Arizona case law, is that the taking of the money or property from a victim be by means of a trick or deception, after the victim's confidence has been secured. It is apparent from the record in this case that this element is missing.
Appellant was an apartment manager and collected rents as part of his duties. On or about October 14, 1974 he collected some rent money which he never turned over to the landlord, the complainant in this action.
These facts clearly support the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Snodgrass
...be sustained unless there is a factual basis to support each of the elements of the crime to which the plea is made. State v. Norris, 113 Ariz. 558, 558 P.2d 903 (1976); State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. 453, 543 P.2d 441 (1975), and we have therefore examined the sufficiency of the evidence in the ......
-
State v. Sanchez
...and all original charges are reinstated. State v. Draper, 123 Ariz. 399, 401, 599 P.2d 852, 854 (App.1979); State v. Norris, 113 Ariz. 558, 560, 558 P.2d 903, 905 (1976). TOCI and KLEINSCHMIDT, JJ., 1 The statute provides:A. A person commits attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability o......
-
State v. Johnson
...limiting a court to only a defendant's record would hinder the review for "strong evidence of actual guilt." See State v. Norris, 113 Ariz. 558, 559, 558 P.2d 903, 904 (1976). This is especially true here: both Petitioner and the co-defendant were charged with the same offense--child abuse ......
-
State v. Varela
...149, 151 (1972). However, the court need not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. State v. Norris, 113 Ariz. 558, 559, 558 P.2d 903, 904 (1976). It must only find " 'strong evidence of actual guilt.' " Id. On appeal, Varela argues that there is no factual bas......