State v. Thompson, 2314
| Decision Date | 12 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 2314,2314 |
| Citation | 504 P.2d 1270,109 Ariz. 47 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Frederick C. THOMPSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Peter Van Orman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Corbet & Esser by Fred R. Esser, Phoenix, for appellant. HAYS, Chief Justice.
This case is before us on an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which transferred it to us under the erroneous impression that it lacked jurisdiction. That court should have retained and decided the case. State v. Howell, 107 Ariz. 300, 486 P.2d 782 (1971). However, since the case was sent to us before that decision, and in order to avoid further delay by sending it back, we are deciding it on the merits.
The defendant, Frederick Charles Thompson, was charged with robbery, but a plea bargain was made and the information was amended to charge grand theft from the person, to which charge defendant pleaded guilty. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. Six months later defendant was charged with robbery with a gun. At the hearing on revocation of probation, defendant admitted committing the robbery. His probation was revoked and he was sentenced to not less than five nor more than six years in prison. He appeals from the judgment of guilt and from the sentence. The sole issue which he raises is that the court at the time of taking the plea of guilty did not conform to the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, in that defendant was not informed that if he pleaded not guilty and went to trial, a lawyer would be furnished to him free of charge if he could not afford one. He contends that the requirements of Boykin were not meant to be exhaustive and that his right to an attorney was one of the things that had to be told to him in order to make his plea understanding and voluntary.
His argument fails, however, because the record shows that on April 7, 1970, the justice of the peace noted:
'Defendant is present and informed of the charge against him; of his right to the aid of counsel.'
On the next day, defendant was represented by Attorney John Beaver, who obtained a lowering of the bond and a new hearing date. Mr. Beaver represented defendant at three hearings, including the one held to revoke the probation. On this appeal, however, defendant is represented by Corbet and Esser.
It is of course possible that the justice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Darling
...the record for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Boykin. State v. Durham, 108 Ariz. 327, 498 P.2d 149 (1972); State v. Thompson, 109 Ariz. 47, 504 P.2d 1270, filed 12 January 1973; State v. Williker, supra; State v. Hooper, 107 Ariz. 327, 487 P.2d 394 And courts have held that w......
-
State v. Munoz
...we note that the principle previously enunciated in State v. Mancini, 19 Ariz.App. 358, 507 P.2d 697 (1973) and State v. Thompson, 109 Ariz. 47, 504 P.2d 1270 (1973) has been expressly incorporated into the language of Rule 17.2c of the 1973 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as 'Before accepting......
-
State v. Mancini, 1
...state that a court need not advise a defendant of his right to an attorney when he is already represented by one. State v. Thompson, 109 Ariz. 47, 504 P.2d 1270 (1973). This contention is not arguable, but The judgments and sentences appealed from are affirmed. ...