Title: State v. Nunez

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

109 Ariz. 408 (1973) 510 P.2d 380 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Fernando Zamarano NUNEZ et al., Appellants. No. 2435. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. May 31, 1973. Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer, III, and Peter M. Van Orman, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Jeffrey R. Fritz, Yuma, for appellants Nunez. Paul E. Hunter, Jr., Yuma, for appellants Rodriguez. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from judgments of guilty after pleas of guilty to the crimes of murder, §§ 13-451, 452, 453 A.R.S., and assault with a deadly weapon, § 13-249, subsec. A A.R.S., and sentences as to each defendant on the charge of murder of not less than 45 nor more than 75 years in the Arizona State Prison, and a concurrent sentence as to each defendant of not less than 5 nor more than 10 years on the charge of assault with a deadly weapon. The defendants raise the following questions on appeal: The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. The three defendants were charged by a direct information filed in the Superior Court with the murder of one Jack Tidwell and assault with a deadly weapon upon one Audrey Canion. The three defendants (each represented by separate counsel) appeared before the trial court on arraignment. The court, after ascertaining that they understood the English language, stated in part: The court, after ascertaining from the attorneys that they had explained to their clients about the right to a preliminary hearing, went on further: The court also addressed each defendant concerning the plea and penalty as follows: The court individually questioned the other two defendants and advised the defendants of their various constitutional *411 rights. Before accepting the plea the trial court addressed the defendants again as follows: The record also shows that at the time of sentencing the trial judge carefully repeated many of the questions and statements he had previously asked and given. From the judgments of guilt and the sentences thereto, the defendants bring this appeal. WERE THE PLEA BARGAINS VOLUNTARY? The defendants contend that at the time the defendants entered their pleas, the death penalty was still effective in Arizona and that the pleas of guilty to second degree murder were entered only to remove the risk of a possible death penalty sentence. Defendants contend that since the death penalty has been abolished, there were, in fact, no plea bargains and the pleas should be set aside. Defendants cite the United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S. Ct. 1209, 20 L. Ed. 2d 138 (1968), as support for their position. In Brady the United States Supreme Court stated: A plea bargain properly entered into and adhered to by the parties should not be set aside because of changes in the law occurring after the plea. To allow a defendant to come back into court and challenge a plea bargain after every change in the law not contemplated by defendant or his counsel at the time of the plea would result in no plea bargain ever being final. We find no error. See also McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S. Ct. 1441, 25 L. Ed. 2d 763 (1970). WERE THE PLEAS VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT? An examination of the record reveals that the trial court took the utmost precautions to comply with both the spirit and the letter of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969), to insure that defendants' guilty *412 pleas were intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily entered. The trial court was particularly careful in determining that there was a fact basis for the pleas. State v. Darling, 109 Ariz. 148, 506 P.2d 1042 (1973). WERE THE SENTENCES EXCESSIVE AS TO NUNEZ? The defendant Nunez, because of his young age, contends that the sentence was excessive as to him. The sentences imposed were within the statutory limitations. We have read the record and we find no abuse of discretion. State v. Masters, 108 Ariz. 189, 494 P.2d 1319 (1972). Judgments affirmed. HAYS, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.