Title: State v. McVay

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

131 Ariz. 369 (1982) 641 P.2d 857 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Loris Lee McVAY, Appellant. No. 4604-2. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. February 4, 1982. *370 Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer III and David R. Cole, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by James R. Hart II, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Justice. On 2 March 1979, defendant Loris Lee McVay was sentenced to death for first degree murder. This court reversed the conviction on 4 December 1980. State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 622 P.2d 9 (1980). On remand, defendant pled guilty to first degree murder pursuant to a plea agreement. After denying defendant's subsequent motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment on 10 April 1981. We have jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4031. Defendant raises the following issues regarding his resentencing: The facts necessary to a determination of these issues are as follows. On 2 December 1977, defendant took a .22 caliber derringer belonging to a friend and went to the home of the victim, Thomas "Pappy" Pitts. He shot the victim in the head and fled on the victim's motorcycle. Defendant was apprehended and convicted of first degree murder in violation of former A.R.S. §§ 13-451 and 13-452 and sentenced to death under former A.R.S. §§ 13-453(A) and 13-454. While his appeal was pending, he was convicted of dangerous or deadly assault by prisoner in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1206 for which he was sentenced to *371 life imprisonment to be served consecutively to the sentence for which he was imprisoned as provided by statute, A.R.S. § 13-1206. We reversed defendant's murder conviction and granted him a new trial. See State v. McVay, supra. On 11 March 1981, prior to retrial, defendant entered a plea of guilty to first degree murder. His later motion to withdraw the plea was denied, and on 11 April 1981, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. PRESENTENCE REPORT Defendant argues that the matter must be remanded for resentencing because he was resentenced without the benefit of an updated presentence report, in violation of Rule 26.4(a), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. The rule states: We find no error for two reasons. First, a presentence report was not necessary as one had been prepared prior to the sentencing on 15 February 1979, following defendant's jury trial conviction. The report, which was some 16 pages long, thoroughly reviewed the crime and investigation, defendant's prior record, personal history, mental health, and the sentencing recommendations of various individuals. There are no indications of changes in circumstances which would require a new report to be prepared, State v. Blier, 113 Ariz. 501, 557 P.2d 1058 (1976), nor did the attorneys request one. See also Comment to Rule 26.4(a) which states that a presentence report is not required when: See also Comment to § 4.1(b), ABA Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures (Approved Draft, 1968) at 204-207. Second, Rule 26.4 does not require a pre-sentence report where the court has no discretion in the sentence to be imposed. By the terms of the plea agreement, the defendant was to receive life imprisonment. The court's only exercise of discretion was to accept or reject the plea agreement. Although ordering an updated presentence report may have been the better practice, once the court accepted the plea agreement, an updated report was unnecessary. The sentence, as a result of the plea agreement, was life regardless of the existence and contents of a later presentence report. We find no error. FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Defendant contends that his guilty plea was involuntary for two reasons. First, he contends that the trial court did not specifically inform him of his rights to a jury trial, to confront his accusers, and to not incriminate himself as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969). At the time of the plea, defendant was addressed by the court as to his understanding of the agreement and the plea he was entering. The following transpired: Rule 17.2, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., reads as follows: We agree with defendant that the trial court did not specifically inform the defendant of all the rights he was waiving at the time of the plea. We do not believe, however, that the plea was involuntary or unknowing. If it is apparent that the defendant did, in fact, know the rights he was waiving, then the failure of the trial court to strictly follow the mandates of Rules 17.2 and 17.3 does not prejudice the defendant. State v. Darling, 109 Ariz. 148, 506 P.2d 1042 (1973). We have stated: In the instant case, defendant signed an agreement which waived basic constitutional rights as set forth in Rule 17.2. He acknowledged in open court that they had been explained to him by his attorney, that he understood them, and that he had voluntarily signed the waiver. The judge emphasized to him that he would not have a jury trial and that he would be incriminating himself by pleading guilty. Furthermore, it is evident that the defendant was aware of his right to plead not guilty, his right to counsel, and his right to confront his accusers, since he had already been to trial on this matter. State v. Lopez, 27 Ariz. App. 626, 557 P.2d 558 (1976). When it may be ascertained from an expanded record that the defendant was aware of his rights, the trial judge's failure to recite the litany of his waiver is not reversible error. State v. Darling, supra; State v. Levario, supra. RANGE OF SENTENCING Defendant also urges that his plea was involuntary because the trial judge failed to advise him of the range of possible sentences. Rule 17.2(b), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. Rule 17.2 states in part: In the instant case, the trial court sentenced defendant Defendant's previous life sentence for the assault committed in prison was ordered to run consecutively to his sentence for the murder of "Pappy" Pitts. He now contends that the court's failure to advise him of the possibility of consecutive sentences violated Rule 17.2(b) and rendered his plea involuntary. Boykin v. Alabama, supra. We do not agree. We have held that the possibility of consecutive sentences is not a "special condition regarding sentence" of which Rule 17.2 requires the judge to inform the defendant. State v. Gordon, 125 Ariz. 425, 610 P.2d 59 (1980). We find no error. FACTUAL BASIS FOR GUILTY PLEA Defendant contends that there is no evidence to show that he acted with malice and therefore there was no factual basis for his plea as required by Rules 17.3 and 26.2(c), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. The rules require that before a plea of guilty or no contest may be accepted, the court shall determine that there is a factual basis for the plea. The court must satisfy itself of the factual basis to support each of the elements of the crime. State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. 453, 543 P.2d 441 (1975). The factual basis may be found in reports of preliminary hearings, the defendant's admissions, and other sources. State v. Varela, 120 Ariz. 596, 587 P.2d 1173 (1978). Although the facts need not show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there must be strong evidence of actual guilt. State v. Varela, supra. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the following exchange occurred: The defendant admitted that he fired the shots which killed the victim and that he intended to do so. This intent supports a finding of malice. Former A.R.S. § 13-451; State v. Smith, 123 Ariz. 231, 599 P.2d 187 (1979). Defendant also admitted at the hearing on change of plea that he had taken a pistol to the victim's home on the night of the murder. These statements support the trial court's acceptance of defendant's plea of guilty of first degree murder. A.R.S. §§ 13-451, 13-452. We find that there was an adequate factual basis from which the trial court could accept a plea of guilty to first degree murder. Judgment affirmed. HOLOHAN, C.J., GORDON, V.C.J., and HAYS and FELDMAN, JJ., concur.