State v. Salas
Decision Date | 18 March 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CR,1 |
Citation | 23 Ariz.App. 297,532 P.2d 872 |
Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Ernesto Adolfo SALAS, Appellant. 780. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Defendant Ernesto Adolfo Salas was charged by Information with burglary, second degree, and an allegation of two prior convictions. After initially pleading not guilty he entered into a formal written plea agreement wherein he agreed to plead guilty to burglary, second degree, in exchange for the State's promise to dismiss the prior convictions and a companion charge of unlawful use of narcotic drugs. Following his plea of guilty, the defendant was sentenced to a term of 4 1/2 to 5 years at Arizona State Prison.
On appeal, defendant alleges that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 17.2, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. Specifically, defendant claims that at the taking of the plea on June 4, 1974, the trial court did not address the defendant personally in open court and advise him that by entering his plea of guilty he was waiving his constitutional rights to a jury trial, to confrontation and the privilege against self-incrimination as required by Rule 17.2 and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
At the June 4, 1974 hearing the following dialogue took place between the court and the defendant after the signed plea agreement was filed with the presiding judge:
'Have you read those?
The written portion of the plea agreement directly above the defendant's signature states:
Defendant asserts that State v. Darling, 109 Ariz. 148, 506 P.2d 1042 (1973) compels that this guilty plea must be vacated. However, State v. Darling is distinguishable on its facts from the case at bar in that in the Darling case the record was entirely void as to the defendant having been advised by the trial court of two of the constitutional rights set forth in Boykin.
The courts of this state have recently issued several opinions stressing compliance with Rules 17.2 and 17.3 and their express intent to follow the mandate of McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) that a waiver of constitutional rights and a showing of voluntariness should be demonstrated in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rodriquez, s. 1
...only be demonstrated in an oral exchange between the court and the accused. 'To do so would exalt form over substance.' State v. Salas, 23 Ariz.App. 297, 532 P.2d at 873. From the entire record before us, it is clear that the defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights. (Sta......
-
State v. Henry
...in an oral exchange between the court and the accused. 'To do so would exalt form over substance' State v. Salas, supra, 532 P.2d at 873 (23 Ariz.App. 297, 532 P.2d 872). From the entire record before us, it is clear that the defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights.' 112......
- Continental Cas. Co. v. Industrial Commission
-
State v. Tiznado
...was no record that demonstrated that the defendant was aware of two of his constitutional rights. In this case, as in State v. Salas, 23 Ariz.App. 297, 532 P.2d 872 (1975), there is a written plea agreement before the court which sets forth the constitutional rights waived upon a guilty ple......