Case Title: State v. Graninger

Citation: 393 P.2d 266, 96 Ariz. 172

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1964-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
96 Ariz. 172 (1964) 393 P.2d 266 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. James E. GRANINGER, Appellant. No. 1288. Supreme Court of Arizona. En Banc. June 17, 1964. Rehearing Denied July 14, 1964. *173 Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., by Philip M. Haggerty, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles N. Ronan, Maricopa County Atty., for appellee. Lawrence C. Cantor, Phoenix, for appellant. BERNSTEIN, Justice. Defendant entered a plea of guilty to first degree burglary and was sentenced to serve from 7 to 10 years. He had previously entered a plea of not guilty but had changed that plea. Defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because of irregularities at the preliminary hearing and also that the sentence imposed was excessive. At the preliminary hearing the defendant was not present. The following colloquy took place between defense counsel and the Justice of the Peace. Defendant claims that the waiver of a preliminary hearing was coerced and therefore void. Defendant next points to Art. II, Sec. 30 of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. which states: Defendant did not, however, call to the attention of the trial judge of the superior court the fact that his waiver of preliminary hearing had been coerced. Rule 79, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. states: Defendant contends that the italicized portion of Criminal Rule 79 is repugnant to Art. II, Sec. 30, Arizona Constitution. In State v. Smith, 62 Ariz. 145, 155 P.2d 622, this court held that the above quoted constitutional provision for a preliminary hearing is waived by a guilty plea before the Justice of the Peace. This court said: Although there are numerous other cases construing Rule 79, Rules of Criminal Procedure, this is the only case we have found which has language on this precise point. The constitutional provision for a preliminary hearing is for the benefit of the defendant and he may waive it. This waiver may be express by the defendant or by implication. Rule 79, Rules of Criminal Procedure is one instance of waiver by implication and is constitutional. State v. Smith, supra. Defendant also contends because of his health and age a sentence of 7 to 10 years is excessive and should be reduced. As we said in State v. Maberry, 93 Ariz. 306, 309, 380 P.2d 604, 606: Affirmed. UDALL, C.J., LOCKWOOD, V.C.J. and STRUCKMEYER and JENNINGS, JJ., concur.