Title: State v. Johnson

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

105 Ariz. 21 (1969) 458 P.2d 955 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Tom JOHNSON, Appellant. No. 1946. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. September 25, 1969. Rehearing Denied October 28, 1969. *22 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Tom Johnson, in pro. per. Vernon B. Croaff, Former Public Defender, by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant. McFARLAND, Justice. Tom Johnson, hereinafter referred to as Defendant, appeals from an order of the Superior Court of Maricopa County denying his Motion for an Order Nunc Pro Tunc to amend his sentence. He contends that the trial court should have given him credit for the time he served under the previous sentence for the same offense. Defendant was found guilty of two (2) counts of the illegal sale of marijuana and sentenced as follows: The conviction was reversed on appeal, and the case was remanded for a new trial. Defendant was reconvicted and given the following sentence: On appeal defendant's reconviction was affirmed. Two years thereafter, defendant filed the Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc Amend Commencement Date of Sentence which was denied. Subsequent to the time of the trial court's pronouncement of sentence upon reconviction, the United States Supreme Court held that punishment already exacted for an offense must be fully credited in imposing sentence upon a new conviction for the same offense. North Carolina v. Pearce (Simpson v. Rice), 395 U.S. 711, 89 S. Ct. 2072, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656. Specifically, the Court stated: It is noted that this Court handed down the decision in State of Arizona v. Ortiz, 104 Ariz. 493, 455 P.2d 971, about one week prior to the Simpson v. Rice, supra, case. In Ortiz we held that the failure to allow credit for time served under a previous sentence for the same offense does not constitute double jeopardy. However, in compliance with the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, we subsequently vacated the sentence of Ortiz and remanded for re-sentencing. The order read, in part, as follows: No credit for the previous time served was allowed in the instant case; therefore, the sentence imposed upon reconviction is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with the order in Ortiz, supra. Inasmuch as we are remanding this case for re-sentencing, it is not necessary to pass on the other contentions of the Defendant, for the reason that they also relate to the setting aside of the sentence. The case is accordingly remanded to the Superior Court for re-sentencing in compliance with this opinion. UDALL, C.J., LOCKWOOD, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER and HAYS, JJ., concur.