Title: State v. Washington

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

108 Ariz. 111 (1972) 493 P.2d 493 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Silas WASHINGTON, Appellant. No. 1908. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division. February 3, 1972. Rehearing Denied February 29, 1972. Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Albert M. Coury, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of guilty and sentence of five to six years entered in the Maricopa County Superior Court on a plea of guilty to first degree burglary, § 13-301 and § 13-302 A.R.S. There is only one question presented for review: Is a defendant denied due process, in a guilty plea case, when the record on appeal is incomplete in that the transcript of the plea of guilty reported stenographically by the court reporter is missing? The facts necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows. On 21 September 1967, police officers apprehended the defendant Silas Washington in the midst of an attempted burglary of a building at 830 East Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona. On 22 September 1967, a complaint was filed against defendant in the East Phoenix I Precinct, Justice Court, and on 9 October 1967 a preliminary hearing was held and defendant was ordered bound over. On 18 October 1967, an information was filed alleging burglary and a prior conviction of a felony. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the information and denied the allegation of a prior conviction. On 2 February 1968, defendant appeared before the Superior Court with retained counsel. At this time the State filed an amended information alleging burglary, first degree, but no allegation of a prior conviction. Also filed was the following stipulation signed by defendant, his attorney, and the Deputy County Attorney: The minute entries of the change of plea, on 2 February 1968, show: Defendant filed a timely appeal to the judgment of conviction and sentence of not less than five years and not more than six years. Counsel attempted to obtain the reporter's transcript of the plea, but such transcript was not forthcoming, as evidenced by the following affidavit: The reporter's transcript of the sentencing was available and was properly filed. DID THE INABILITY OF THE COURT TO FURNISH A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PLEA CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS? At issue here is the voluntariness of a guilty plea under standards prior to Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969), since Boykin is not retroactive. State v. Griswold, 105 Ariz. 1, 457 P.2d 331 (1969). We have previously held that in pre-Boykin cases: We have also indicated that pre-Boykin cases must be judged "with reference to the basic fairness of those proceedings rather than to rigid standards [of Boykin] subsequently promulgated of which the trial judge could not have been aware." State v. Johnson, 107 Ariz. 169, 171, 484 P.2d 1, 3 (1971). Judged by these standards, the judgment and sentence must be affirmed. Defendant points to State v. Ponce, 106 Ariz. 420, 477 P.2d 251 (1970), in support of his position. In Ponce, supra, this court reversed and remanded a conviction based on a guilty plea because, in addition to not being represented by counsel: We believe that the Ponce decision, supra, can be distinguished on two grounds. First, Ponce was not represented by counsel, and secondly, Ponce's guilty plea was not the result of a plea bargain. While it is true that defendants can be prejudiced by inadequate representation of counsel, there is no allegation by defendant herein that such was the case. We believe that where a defendant is represented by adequate counsel and a plea of guilty is entered after a plea bargain, the appellate courts are justified in giving credence to the trial court's findings as set forth in the minutes that the plea of guilty was "willingly" and "voluntarily" made and that the defendant understood "the nature and consequences of this change of plea." Judgment affirmed. HAYS, C.J., and LOCKWOOD, J., concur.