State v. Washington
| Decision Date | 01 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CR,1 |
| Citation | 427 P.2d 381,5 Ariz.App. 400 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Johnny Lee WASHINGTON, Appellant. 112. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., James S. Tegart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Gerald A. Machmer and Ray A. Taylor, Phoenix, for appellant.
This matter comes before us in relation to the revocation of probation and the imposition of sentence. The appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to justify a revocation of probation and urges inadequacy of the notice to the defendant's attorney.
In relation to the appeal, the designation of record was limited to: 'All of the records, orders, transcripts, proceedings and evidence with reference to the revocation of probation proceeding on July 7, 1966.' We do not have before us the original judgment of guilt or the terms of probation. The record does disclose a formal written preliminary order on revocation of probation which was entered on 1 July 1966. The order directed the issuance of the warrant of arrest. It also recited that on 24 November 1965, the defendant was adjudged guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree and that he was placed on probation for three years. The order fixed the hour of 1:30 in the afternoon on the 7th of July 1966 as the date and time 'for further inquiry into the matter, including the matter of the restoration of said defendant to probation or the entry of a judgment of sentence, whichever shall be appropriate.'
At the 7 July 1966 hearing on revocation, the defendant was present with his attorney, an attorney experienced in criminal law. A court reporter was present at the hearing and the reporter's transcript of the proceedings has been furnished to us. Neither the minutes nor the reporter's transcript discloses a request for a continuance. The reporter's transcript does disclose that at the close of the hearing the attorney advised the court that he had nothing to present to the court and that he could not show legal cause why the sentence should not then be pronounced. He did state:
The main thrust of the appeal is the fact that the police officer who arrested the defendant while on probation, and made a report in relation to the circumstances of the arrest, was not present in court as a witness. The report charged the defendant with burglarizing a house and this the defendant denied. During the course of the hearing the court addressed the defendant as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Walter
...979 (1953), since such power did not exist at common law, Varela v. Merrill, 51 Ariz. 64, 74 P.2d 569 (1937). State v. Washington, 5 Ariz.App. 400, 427 P.2d 381 (1967); State v. Douglas, 87 Ariz. 182, 349 P.2d 622, certiorari denied 363 U.S. 815, 80 S.Ct. 1255, 4 L.Ed.2d 1157 The U.S. Supre......
-
Com. v. Kates
...trial was not noted in the court's opinion. See Bullock v. State, 121 Ga.App. 700, 175 S.E.2d 16o (1970); State v. Washington, 5 Ariz.App. 400, 427 P.2d 381 (1967); Ortega v. State, 414 S.W.2d 465 (Tex.Cr.App.1967).10 We should also note that we believe that Morrissey v. Brewer, Supra, is a......
-
State v. Van Meter
...979 (1953); Smith v. State, 37 Ariz. 262, 293 P. 23 (1930); State v. McKelvey, 30 Ariz. 265, 246 P. 550 (1926); State v. Washington, 5 Ariz.App. 400, 427 P.2d 381 (1967). A.R.S. § 13--1657 relates to the suspension of the imposition of sentence and the granting of probation. Neither this st......
-
State v. Bates
...on the merits; to remain free under a suspended sentence is not a right but a matter of discretion with the court. State v. Washington, 5 Ariz.App. 400, 427 P.2d 381 (1967). It is enough for the court to have a 'reason to believe' that the individual is 'violating the conditions of his prob......