State v. Scott, 2

Citation496 P.2d 609,17 Ariz.App. 183
Decision Date02 May 1972
Docket NumberNo. 2,CA-CR,2
PartiesThe STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Walter Ezra Lee SCOTT and Eugene Larkin Sharp, Appellants. 282.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Phoenix by John S. O'Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for appellee.

Richard G. Clemans, Casa Grande, for appellants.

KRUCKER, Chief Judge.

Appellants were charged with the offense of escape under A.R.S. § 13--392, as amended. The defendants appeared before the court, the Honorable E. D. McBryde presiding, on 9 August 1971, and pursuant to a plea bargain with the county attorney's office plead guilty to the charge of escape. On 16 August 1971, defendants were sentenced to the Arizona State Prison.

Appellants raise two issues on appeal. One, they maintain that they were charged under the wrong statute (A.R.S. § 13--392, as amended); that because they were outside trustees at the time they should have been charged under A.R.S. § 13--395, as amended. Two, they argue that they were denied due process and equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they were prosecuted for escape while numerous other escapees have not been prosecuted and, they contend that institutional punishment in addition to the criminal charges amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

During a two-year period in which 31 inmates escaped from the Arizona State Prison, only five charges of escape were filed, including the charges against the appellants herein. The decision as to whether or not to file charges of escape is made by the warden. Upon being returned to the Arizona State Prison, appellants herein received institutional punishment including confinement in isolation.

It is clear from the transcript of proceedings that the appellants' guilty pleas to the charge of escape under A.R.S. § 13--392, as amended, were made pursuant to a plea bargain by which a charge of Grand Theft Auto was dismissed. The plea bargaining process has generally been accepted. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970); State v. Williamson, 104 Ariz. 9, 448 P.2d 65 (1968). And, as this court previously pointed out in State v. Myers, 12 Ariz.App. 409, 471 P.2d 294 (1970), a defendant who pleads guilty pursuant to a plea bargain waives the right to claim that he was charged under the wrong statute. The question of correct statute is academic here anyway since both A.R.S. § 13--392, as amended, and A.R.S. § 13--395, as amended, provide for the same punishment.

Appellants' argument that institutional punishment in addition to the criminal charges amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment deserves no more discussion than a reference to ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, Matter of
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1990
    ...in this particular case. See State v. Denny, 116 Ariz. 361, 365, 569 P.2d 303, 307 (App.1977); see also State v. Scott, 17 Ariz.App. 183, 185, 496 P.2d 609, 611 (1972). 2. Overbreadth Petitioner next argues that § 13-1404 is constitutionally overbroad as applied to him. As a matter of const......
  • Shack v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 25, 1972
    ...(1891), 142 U.S. 160, 12 S.Ct. 158, 35 L.Ed. 974; Rosenberg v. Carroll (S.D.N.Y.1951), 99 F.Supp. 630. See also, State v. Scott (1972), 17 Ariz.App. 183, 496 P.2d 609; Adams v. Pate (7th Cir. 1971), 445 F.2d Appellant's next contention is that he was denied a speedy trial under Ind.Ann.Stat......
  • State v. Kessler
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 2000
    ...74802-2, 164 Ariz. at 30, 790 P.2d at 728; see State v. Denny, 116 Ariz. 361, 365, 569 P.2d 303, 307 (App.1977); State v. Scott, 17 Ariz.App. 183, 185, 496 P.2d 609, 611 (1972). Without some evidence of discriminatory enforcement of Regulation Number 1, we reject Kessler's argument that the......
  • State v. Miller
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1974
    ...his right to complain of irregularities occurring during the preliminary stages of the proceedings against him. State v. Scott, 17 Ariz.App. 183, 496 P.2d 609 (1972); State v. Nicholson, 109 Ariz. 6, 503 P.2d 954 (1972); State v. Hansen, 105 Ariz. 368, 464 P.2d 960 Judgment affirmed. HAYS, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT