State v. Page
| Decision Date | 11 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 3709--PR,3709--PR |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Susan Lynn PAGE, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III, and Galen H. Wilkes, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
George M. Sterling, Jr., Phoenix, for appellant.
The appellant, Susan Lynn Page, was charged by information with the crime of possession of heroin, a narcotic drug, in violation of A.R.S. § 36--1002. Appellant entered into a plea agreement to which she pled no contest to a charge of possession of a dangerous drug in violation of A.R.S. § 32--1970(C) (1). The trial court entered a judgment of guilty and sentenced appellant to three years' probation. Appellant filed a timely appeal from the judgment and sentence. The Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the judgment but remanded the case to the trial court for modification of one of the probationary conditions. State v. Page, 115 Ariz. 131, 564 P.2d 82 (Filed September 9, 1976). We granted review. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated.
Appellant has raised two issues on appeal. First, appellant argues that there was no factual basis for her plea of no contest to possession of dangerous drugs where the only evidence relied upon by the trial court showed her in possession of heroin. Second, appellant contends that one of the probationary conditions requiring her to submit to a warrantless search at any time by any peace officer or probation officer is overbroad and a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.
Appellant's argument that there was no factual basis for her no contest plea to possession of dangerous drugs is premised on the fact that heroin is not defined as a dangerous drug under A.R.S. § 32--1901. Rather, heroin is defined as a narcotic drug under A.R.S. §§ 36--1001(12) and 36--1001(14), and its possession is proscribed by A.R.S. § 36--1002. It is ironic that our agreement with appellant's contention will not work to her benefit.
In its opinion the Court of Appeals found that there was a sufficient factual basis for appellant's plea of no contest because: (1) there was a factual basis for the more serious charge of possession of heroin; and (2) there was a categorical similarity between the charge of possession of heroin and possession of a dangerous drug since each charge was drug-related. The Court of Appeals adopted its reasoning from State v. McGhee, 27 Ariz.App. 119, 551 P.2d 568 (1976), which in turn relied upon the Comments to the ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Relating to Pleas of Guilty, § 3.1(b) (ii) (1967), at 68. Although the categorical similarity test of the ABA standards was recently approved by this court in State v. Norris, 113 Ariz. 558, 558 P.2d 903 (Filed December 20, 1976), that standard is limited by State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. 453, 543 P.2d 441 (1975). In Carr and State v. Davis, 112 Ariz. 140, 539 P.2d 897 (1975), we stated that a plea of guilty cannot be sustained absent a factual basis to support each of the elements of the crime to which the defendant has pled. Appellant's entry of the plea of no contest rather than the plea of guilty does not alter the matter in this case. Pursuant to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Snodgrass
...any of the operative phrases of the statute mandates that the no contest plea and the conviction thereon be set aside, State v. Page, 115 Ariz. 156, 564 P.2d 379 (No. 3709-PR, filed April 11, 1977); State v. Norris, supra; State v. Mendiola, 23 Ariz.App. 251, 532 P.2d 193 We turn next to th......
-
Luke v. State
...severe inroads on protections afforded by the Bill of Rights." State v. Page, 115 Ariz. 131, 564 P.2d 82, 84 (1976), vacated, 115 Ariz. 156, 564 P.2d 379 (1977). It is, in fact, a Hobson's choice (State v. Morgan, 206 Neb. 818, 295 N.W.2d 285, 290 (dissent) (1980); a choice between the less......
-
State v. Gawron
...cases before those other courts from the one presented to us. 1 The Supreme Court of Arizona later vacated State v. Page in State v. Page, 115 Ariz. 156, 564 P.2d 379 (1977), on other grounds and left the probationary condition issue to be discussed. In a later case, State v. Montgomery, 11......
-
State v. Montgomery, 3886
...applicable to that issue. We reserve our comments on the issue until the matter is presented to us for decision." State v. Page, No. 3709-PR, 115 Ariz. 156, 564 P.2d 379 (1977). The Court of Appeals, Division Two, in State v. Jeffers, 116 Ariz. 192, 568 P.2d 1090, No. 2 CA-CR 971, 16 May (A......
-
Cognitive Restructuring Through Law: a Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approach to Sex Offenders and the Plea Process
...State v. Moreno, 492 P.2d 440 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972) (factual basis for guilty plea necessary before judgment is entered); State v. Page, 564 P.2d 379, 380 (Ariz. 1977) (factual basis must support each element of crime to which defendant pleads no contest); State v. Dixon, 523 P.2d 789, 791 ......