State v. Watton

• Decision Date: 07 June 1990
• Docket Number: No. CR-89-0255-PR,CR-89-0255-PR
• Parties: , 59 USLW 2026 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Scott Allen WATTON, Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 80

793 P.2d 80

164 Ariz. 323, 59 USLW 2026

STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Scott Allen WATTON, Appellant.

No. CR-89-0255-PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

June 7, 1990.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. and Alan Polley, Cochise County Atty., Bisbee, for appellee.

Robert F. Arentz, Cochise County Public Defender and Joseph P. DiRoberto, Cochise County Deputy Public Defender, Bisbee, for appellant.

GORDON, Chief Justice.

Scott Allen Watton (defendant) petitioned for review of a court of appeals order reversing the superior court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief and remanding for an evidentiary hearing. The State did not file a response. We granted review pursuant to Rule 32.9(f), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S. We have jurisdiction under Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant was indicted on charges of kidnapping, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1304, and aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1204(A) and 13-604(G). Defendant and the State entered into a plea agreement under which defendant pleaded guilty to the aggravated assault charge, a class 3 felony, and in exchange the kidnapping charge, a class 2 felony, was dismissed. The agreement set out the sentencing range and required defendant to serve at least two-thirds of any sentence imposed before being eligible for release.

The plea agreement also contained the following provision:

Both State and Defendant agree to submit the matter of sentencing on the basis of the presentence report. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense counsel will contact the Adult Probation Officer who is writing the presentence report.

At the change of plea hearing, defense counsel advised the court of this provision, stating:

[T]here's an additional provision in the plea agreement whereby the prosecutor and I have agreed to submit the matter of sentencing on the record on the basis of the pre-sentence report. As I understand that, I am not to make any argument to the court at the time of sentencing.

I have discussed that provision with Mr. Watton, and I understand that he agrees with that provision as well.

Defendant also informed the court that he agreed to the provision. The trial court found that defendant voluntarily entered the plea agreement and that a factual basis existed for the plea. The court then set the matter for sentencing and ordered preparation of a presentence report.

At sentencing, neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel argued their respective positions about defendant's sentencing; neither did they discuss the presentence report. ¹ The court found that aggravating Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief and counsel was appointed to represent him. Defendant alleged that the presentence report contained inaccurate statements and ignored other information relevant to sentencing. He contended that the challenged provision threatened the foundation of our judicial system by leading to a sentence based on incomplete and inaccurate information. Defendant argued that both counsel interpreted the agreement to prohibit them from addressing the court at sentencing, which prevented them from correcting inaccuracies in the presentence report and led the court to impose sentence without having all relevant information before it.

[164 Ariz. 325] factors outweighed any mitigating factors and sentenced defendant to the maximum term of 15 years. Defendant did not appeal.

The trial court subsequently dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing and denied defendant's motion for rehearing. Defendant then sought review in the court of appeals, raising the same arguments. The court of appeals granted review and ordered:

[Defendant] raised a colorable claim as to whether the provision of the plea agreement pertaining to sentencing was construed by the court and counsel to prohibit counsel not only from arguing their respective positions with respect to sentencing, which is permissible, but also to preclude petitioner's counsel from raising and correcting any factual inaccuracies in the presentence report, which would violate petitioner's right to due process and to the effective assistance of counsel.

The court of appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the plea agreement was construed as precluding defense counsel from raising and correcting inaccuracies and whether the report contained any errors. The court ordered defendant resentenced if the trial court found that the provision had been so construed and factual errors existed. Otherwise, the court held, defendant was not entitled to any relief.

On review in this court, defendant challenges the court of appeals order. He submits that the entire plea agreement should be set aside and that he should be granted a new trial. In the alternative, defendant claims he is entitled to be resentenced without an evidentiary hearing.

DISCUSSION

Defendant asks that we determine whether counsels' interpretation of the stipulation in the plea agreement: (1) rendered his plea involuntary; (2) violated the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions; (3) deprived him of effective assistance of counsel; or (4) contravened public policy. Defendant also asks us to determine the appropriate relief if a violation is found.

Voluntariness of the Plea Agreement

We note at the outset that a grant or denial of post-conviction relief is within the trial court's discretion. We will not reverse the trial court's decision unless an abuse of discretion affirmatively appears. State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433, 441, 719 P.2d 1049, 1057 (1986); State v. Adamson, 136 Ariz. 250, 265, 665 P.2d 972, 987 (1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 104 S.Ct. 204, 78 L.Ed.2d 178 (1983).

Defendant argues that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter the guilty plea because: (1) he could not, and did not, foresee that the presentence report would be prepared in a biased and prejudicial manner; (2) he could not foresee that the provision would be interpreted to Public policy supports the use of plea agreements in the criminal process. Properly negotiated plea agreements, when used correctly, enhance judicial economy, protect the State's resources, and promote justice for defendants, victims, and the State. State v. Draper, 162 Ariz. 433, 439-40, 784 P.2d 259, 265-66 (1989) (quoting State v. Superior Court, 125 Ariz. 575, 577, 611 P.2d 928, 930 (1980)). Under Rule 17.4(a) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., parties may negotiate and reach an agreement on any aspect of the disposition of a case, including an agreement not to make sentencing recommendations. State v. Solano, 150 Ariz. 398, 401, 724 P.2d 17, 20 (1986).

[164 Ariz. 326] prevent counsel from challenging any inaccuracies in the report, presenting mitigating evidence, or contacting the probation officer preparing the report; and (3) counsels' interpretation of the provision effectively led to defendant being deprived of his right to a presentence hearing. Accordingly, defendant claims, he should be allowed to withdraw from the plea agreement, and he should be granted a new trial.

A plea must be made voluntarily, "with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1469, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). The court will accept a plea of guilty only if it is voluntarily and intelligently made. Rule 17.1(b), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S. A defendant must thoroughly understand the plea's potential ramifications and be apprised of both the sentencing range and the rights forfeited. Rule 17.2, Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.; State v. Cutler, 121 Ariz. 328, 329, 590 P.2d 444, 445 (1979). Moreover, the plea must not be induced by any force, threats, or promises outside the plea agreement that change the voluntary nature of the plea. State v. Linsner, 105 Ariz. 488, 491, 467 P.2d 238, 241 (1970).

The fact that a sentencing judge may be presented with ambiguous, unreliable, or inaccurate information at sentencing is not necessarily grounds for finding that a defendant did not enter the plea agreement voluntarily. In this case, any misinformation would affect only the term of the sentence; defendant knew he faced a possible aggravated term of 15 years by entering into the plea agreement. See State v. Phillips, 108 Ariz. 332, 333-34, 498 P.2d 199, 200-01 (1972) (defendant claiming he was led to believe he would receive shorter sentence than sentence imposed was not entitled to change the plea just because he decided he made a bad bargain). A defendant who has received the full benefit of a plea bargain cannot be allowed to withdraw the plea merely because of disagreement with the sentence. State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477, 481, 747 P.2d 1176, 1180 (1987) ("Where the missing information does not go to defendant's essential objective in making the agreement, where it involves secondary or minor terms collateral to the decision to plead, and where it is not 'of the essence' of the agreement, it is in the public interest that the agreement be enforced.").

From the record, we can discern that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request that the plea agreement be vacated, as there was sufficient evidence that defendant entered the plea voluntarily and intelligently. Defendant was represented by counsel at the change of plea hearing, and the court detailed the punishment to which defendant could be subjected for the crime of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. ² Before accepting defendant's guilty plea, the judge also explained the rights defendant waived by entering the plea agreement. Defendant stated that he understood and accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the provision challenged here.

Defendant knew of and understood the essential terms of the plea agreement, including the...