State v. Williker, No. 2156

CourtSupreme Court of Arizona
Writing for the CourtCAMERON; STRUCKMEYER
PartiesThe STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Gene WILLIKER, Appellant.
Decision Date07 December 1971
Docket NumberNo. 2156

Page 465

491 P.2d 465
107 Ariz. 611
The STATE of Arizona, Appellee,
v.
Gene WILLIKER, Appellant.
No. 2156.
Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.
Dec. 7, 1971.

[107 Ariz. 612]

Page 466

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by William P. Dixon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Supervising Atty., Phoenix, Ramon V. Gomez, Third Year Law Student, College of Law, Arizona State University, Tempe, of counsel, for appellee.

Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by James H. Kemper, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.

CAMERON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of guilt entered after defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of rape.

We are called upon to determine:

1. Whether the plea of guilty conformed to the mandate of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).

2. Whether judgment of guilt to the crime of rape is proper when neither the information nor the judgment indicates the degree of the offense.

3. Whether there was an adequate factual basis for the plea.

The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. On 5 December 1969, an information was filed in the Superior Court of Maricopa County charging the defendant with one count of Kidnapping in violation of § 13--491 A.R.S. and one count of rape in violation of § 13--611 A.R.S. Defendant was arraigned on these charges on 10 December 1969, and he pleaded not guilty to each count. As a result of 'plea bargaining', the defendant came before the court on 2 February 1970 for a change of plea. It was understood that defendant would plead guilty to the rape charge, and the kidnapping charge would be dropped. At this time the following transpired:

'MR. RITCHIE: (Attorney for Appellant) Mr. Williker, you have told me that you do desire to plead guilty at this time as to Count II charging you with the crime of Rape. You understand that if you plead guilty or any person for that matter pleads guilty to a crime that they are giving up their right to have their guilt or innocence determined at a July trial?

'THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

'MR. RITCHIE: You understand that?

'THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

'MR. RITCHIE: I have explained these things to you?

'THE DEFENDANT: Right.

'MR. RITCHIE: And you also understand that at a Jury trial you would have the right to be represented by a lawyer?

'THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

'MR. RITCHIE: Who would cross examine the witnesses against you and present testimony in your behalf?

'THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

'MR. RITCHIE: And you also understand that you wouldn't have to testify at a Jury trial?

'THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

'MR. RITCHIE: Do you understand also that before a Jury could either [107 Ariz. 613]

Page 467

acquit or convict you of the charges that you are accused of that all 12 of them would have to agree?

'THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

'MR. RITCHIE: Now, Mr. Williker, has anybody put any force on you, duress, coercion in order to seek now the Judge's permission to plead guilty to Count II?

'THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

'MR. RITCHIE: Has anybody promised you leniency, meaning specifically, has anybody promised you probation if you plead guilty?

'THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

* * *

* * *

'MR. RITCHIE: Do you understand that Count II could carry up to life imprisonment?

'THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

'MR. RITCHIE: The Rape Charge. All right. Now you are charged with on or about the 30th day of October, 1969, of raping one Grace Zaragoza. Would you briefly tell the Court the circumstances surrounding that charge?

'THE DEFENDANT: Well we were at a party and started drinking pretty heavy and I just forced her into it.

* * *

* * *

'THE COURT: All right, to this charge of Rape as against one Grace Zaragoza charged to have been committed on or about the 30th day of October 1969, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty?

'THE DEFENDANT: Guilty, Your Honor.

'THE COURT: And in telling me about this, it was a matter of force being used against the woman?

'THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

'THE COURT: All right. The record will show that the defendant withdraws his plea of not guilty previously entered herein and enters a plea of guilty to the charge of Rape as charged in Count II of the Information.'

On 24 March 1970, defendant was sentenced to serve not less than ten nor more than 15 years in prison. The kidnapping charge was dropped. On 23 April 1970, the defendant filed his notice of appeal to this court.

WAS THE PLEA PROPER?

Defendant contends that, in light of Boykin v. Alabama, supra, his plea of guilty to the rape charge was improperly taken, in that the judge did not personally conduct the interrogation wherein defendant was asked whether he understood which constitutional rights he was waiving in pleading guilty.

The United States Supreme Court in Boykin v. Alabama, supra, stated:

'* * * It was error, plain on the face of the record, for the trial judge to accept petitioner's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Kayer v. Ryan, No. 09-99027
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 18, 2019
    ...v. Cohen , 173 Ariz. 497, 844 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1993) (referring to a "healthy respect for stare decisis"); State v. Williker , 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465, 468 (1971) (referring to a "proper respect for the theory of stare decisis"). Id. at 826.As a matter of law, our co......
  • Davis v. State, No. 114
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 7, 1976
    ...206 N.W.2d 828, 830-31 (1973). In addition, compare State v. Laurino, 106 Ariz. 586, 480 P.2d 342, 344 (1971) with State v. Williker, 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465, 468 Since the decisions of this Court have long required guilty pleas to be entered voluntarily and intelligently, Boykin, as we......
  • McKinney v. Ryan, No. 09–99018.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 29, 2015
    ...v. Cohen, 173 Ariz. 497, 844 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1993)(referring to "a healthy respect for stare decisis"); State v. Williker, 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465, 468 (1971)(referring to "a proper respect for the theory of stare decisis"); White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 358 P.2d ......
  • State v. Darling, No. 2393
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • March 1, 1973
    ...with Rule 11 may not be mandated, it will certainly satisfy the requirements of Boykin, supra, if Rule 11 is followed. State v. Williker, 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465 (1971). Neither Boykin, supra, nor Brady, supra, however, defined the term 'record' and we have held that the presence report......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Kayer v. Ryan, No. 09-99027
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 18, 2019
    ...v. Cohen , 173 Ariz. 497, 844 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1993) (referring to a "healthy respect for stare decisis"); State v. Williker , 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465, 468 (1971) (referring to a "proper respect for the theory of stare decisis"). Id. at 826.As a matter of law, our co......
  • Davis v. State, No. 114
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 7, 1976
    ...206 N.W.2d 828, 830-31 (1973). In addition, compare State v. Laurino, 106 Ariz. 586, 480 P.2d 342, 344 (1971) with State v. Williker, 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465, 468 Since the decisions of this Court have long required guilty pleas to be entered voluntarily and intelligently, Boykin, as we......
  • McKinney v. Ryan, No. 09–99018.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 29, 2015
    ...v. Cohen, 173 Ariz. 497, 844 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1993)(referring to "a healthy respect for stare decisis"); State v. Williker, 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465, 468 (1971)(referring to "a proper respect for the theory of stare decisis"); White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 358 P.2d ......
  • State v. Darling, No. 2393
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • March 1, 1973
    ...with Rule 11 may not be mandated, it will certainly satisfy the requirements of Boykin, supra, if Rule 11 is followed. State v. Williker, 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465 (1971). Neither Boykin, supra, nor Brady, supra, however, defined the term 'record' and we have held that the presence report......
  • 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