Case Title: State v. Mancini

Citation: 107 Ariz. 71, 481 P.2d 864

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1971-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
107 Ariz. 71 (1971) 481 P.2d 864 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Edward Arnold MANCINI, Appellant. No. 2138. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division. March 5, 1971. Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Ross P. Lee, Public Defender, Maricopa County by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of guilt after a plea of guilty to the crime of assault with intent to commit murder, § 13-248 A.R.S. Defendant was sentenced to the *72 Arizona State Prison for a term of not less than ten nor more than twelve years. We are called upon to determine whether the plea was voluntarily and intelligently made and properly accepted. The facts necessary for a determination of the matter on appeal are as follows. Defendant, after a preliminary hearing at which time he was represented by counsel, was held to answer to the Superior Court on a charge of assault with intent to murder one Tito Chavez. On 4 February 1970, defendant entered a plea of not guilty at arraignment. Trial was set for 2 March 1970, and on that date the cause proceeded as follows: On appeal the appellant has presented the following questions for consideration as possible grounds for reversal: MUST THE DEFENDANT PERSONALLY ENTER HIS PLEA OF GUILTY? Although the minute entry of this hearing on the change of plea notes that the "court finds that the defendant enters his plea of guilty, knowingly, willingly and voluntarily and the court accepts the plea", we cannot find wherein the defendant in his own voice entered a specific plea of "guilty". Our Court of Appeals has stated: Admittedly the "better" practice was not followed in the case before the court. However, the record is clear that it was defendant's intention to enter and be bound by a plea of guilty to the offense as charged. He was not misled or in doubt as to what was happening at the time and the effect of his actions. The Court of Appeals has recently held this very argument to be without merit. In that case defendant, when asked by counsel did she "wish to plead guilty", answered "yes". The court said: WAS THE PLEA PROPERLY ACCEPTED? We believe that the plea in this case was voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly made and complied with the mandate of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969) in that the court ascertained before accepting the plea that there was a factual basis for said plea. Defendant contends, however, that the court should not have accepted a plea of guilty to a crime that requires intent when the defendant states to the court that he did not intend to murder the victim. The defendant stated: The United States Supreme Court has stated: Defendant's statement that he was "not sure" whether he intended to murder the victim is not enough to override all the other evidence before the court and require that the court decline to accept the plea of guilty voluntarily and intelligently made by the defendant. Additionally, intent to kill may be presumed from the use of a deadly weapon. State v. Preis, 89 Ariz. 336, 339, 362 P.2d 660 (1961); State v. Schroeder, 95 Ariz. 255, 260, 389 P.2d 255 (1964). We believe the plea was properly accepted. We have reviewed the entire record as required by § 13-1715, subsec. B, A.R.S. and we have found no fundamental error. Judgment affirmed. HAYS, V.C.J., and LOCKWOOD, J., concur.