Case Title: State v. Robison

Citation: 408 P.2d 29, 99 Ariz. 240

Docket Number: 1501

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1965-11-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
99 Ariz. 240 (1965) 408 P.2d 29 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert LaVerne ROBISON, Appellant. No. 1501. Supreme Court of Arizona. En Banc. November 24, 1965. *242 Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Julian F. Weltsch, Phoenix, for appellant. McFARLAND, Justice: Appellant, Robert LaVerne Robison, was charged, tried, and found guilty by a jury of the crime of robbery, with a prior conviction, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-641 and A.R.S. § 13-643. He was sentenced to serve a term of not less than ten nor more than eleven years in the Arizona state prison. From his conviction and sentence he appeals. Appellant, on the evening of December 24, 1963, entered the Hudson Oil Company service station, 2520 West Buckeye Road, Phoenix, Arizona, at approximately 11:30 p.m., and through the use of a .32 calibre revolver obtained some $67.00 from the station attendant, Raymond Chisler, and the station cash drawer. Appellant then ordered Chisler into the back room of the station, and ordered him to wait there for fifteen minutes. Chisler waited a few moments, and then turned off the station lights and called the Phoenix police. Appellant was apprehended less than one hour after the robbery by Phoenix police officer Carrol Newby, who recognized appellant from a description broadcast on the police radio. Appellant pleaded not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity to the crime charged, and denied the prior conviction. Appellant raises four assignments of error. The first is the lower court erred in allowing the prosecution to question him over objection concerning his previous felony conviction, on grounds that it was too remote in time, that the nature of the previous offense prohibited such questioning, and, finally, that appellant was only twenty-three years of age at the time of its commission. Appellant had been convicted of a felony receiving stolen property in 1957, seven years prior to his trial in the instant case. We stated in State v. Boodry, 96 Ariz. 259, 394 P.2d 196: We find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge. Appellant's first assignment of error is unfounded. Appellant's second assignment of error is the lower court's overruling of his objection to testimony of the prosecution's witness, officer Newby, concerning the mental condition of appellant at the time of commission of the robbery. Officer Newby testified the appellant was in his presence for a period of one to one and a half hours after the arrest. We have previously held that the opinion of a lay witness is admissible where sanity is an issue. State v. Miranda, 98 Ariz. 11, 401 P.2d 716; State v. Coey, 82 Ariz. 133, 309 P.2d 260. The fact that the one testifying is a lay witness goes to the weight to be given the testimony rather than to its admissibility. State v. Coey, supra. In State v. Griffin, 99 Ariz. 43, 406 P.2d 397, we said: In the instant case Officer Newby testified as to the arrest and subsequent incidents immediately following, including a conversation between him and appellant while driving to police headquarters. Newby testified further to the interrogation of appellant. He was then asked to describe appellant's actions and conduct, and to give his opinion as to appellant's sanity based on observations and discussions with appellant on the night of the robbery. The circumstances surrounding the observations of Officer Newby do not affect the admissibility of the testimony, but only the weight it is to be given by the jury. Appellant's second assignment of error is without merit. State v. Griffin, supra; Henderson v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 409, 94 S.W.2d 467. *244 Appellant next contends the lower court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the deputy county attorney's closing argument concerning the lack of psychiatric testimony by the defense as to appellant's mental condition at the time of commission of the robbery. The import of these statements was to the effect that appellant had refused, or indicated he would so refuse, to be examined by a psychiatrist for the state. In State v. Dowthard, 92 Ariz. 44, 373 P.2d 357, we said: And, in State v. Woolery, 93 Ariz. 76, 378 P.2d 751: In the instant case the lower court, as in State v. Woolery, supra, instructed the jury: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for mistrial. Appellant also contends his sentence to a term of not less than ten nor more than eleven years in the state prison was illegal, and excessive, because appellant was erroneously sentenced under A.R.S. § 13-1649, providing for increased punishment for a subsequent conviction where there has been a prior conviction within the state, on grounds the record indicated appellant had not been convicted of a prior felony. A.R.S. § 13-1649 provides, in part: Appellant withdrew his denial of the prior conviction shortly after the jury returned a verdict of guilty to the charge of robbery. By reason of his change of plea appellant waived objection to his sentencing under the prior-conviction statute, A.R.S. § 13-1649, supra. State v. Lopez, 99 Ariz. 11, 405 P.2d 892; State v. Alford, 98 Ariz. 124, 402 P.2d 551; State v. Murphy, 97 Ariz. 14, 396 P.2d 250. Appellant, when questioned about a prior conviction of a felony, testified he had pleaded guilty to a felony. Both counsel in the absence of the jury stated appellant was sentenced for two years in prison for the offense of receiving stolen property, and the sentence was suspended. Counsel for appellant now contends there was no conviction, for the reason that the statute (A.R.S. § 13-1657) provides for suspension of sentence but not for suspension of execution of sentence, and that a suspended sentence does not constitute a prior conviction. In State v. Edge, 96 Ariz. 302, 394 P.2d 418, in which the trial court suspended the execution of sentence, we said: Appellant in his testimony did not state whether the execution of the sentence was suspended or the passing of sentence suspended. However, as stated in State v. Edge, supra, he was not prejudiced if the *246 court suspended the execution of the sentence instead of the imposition of sentence. A.R.S. § 13-1649 provides an offense "punishable by imprisonment" not that defendant was punished by imprisonment. In Tanzer v. United States, 278 F.2d 137 (9th Cir.1960), the court stated: The majority of jurisdictions that have ruled on this question agree that in the absence of statutory modification there has been a former conviction though sentence or passing of sentence for the offense has been suspended, or the defendant placed on probation. See Annot., 5 A.L.R.2d 1080 (1950); Tanzer v. United States, supra. This assignment of error is unfounded. Judgment affirmed. LOCKWOOD, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and UDALL and BERNSTEIN, JJ., concur.