Title: State v. Defoy

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

109 Ariz. 159 (1973) 506 P.2d 1053 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. James DEFOY, Appellant. No. 2386. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. March 1, 1973. Rehearing Denied April 3, 1973. *160 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Peter M. Van Orman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Cornelius J. O'Driscoll, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment entered on defendant's pleas of guilty to two counts of first degree burglary, § 13-302, subsec. B, A.R.S., and a sentence of thirteen to fifteen years on each count to run consecutively. We are asked to answer the following questions on appeal: The facts necessary for a determination of this appeal are as follows. After a preliminary *161 hearing, the defendant was held to answer to the charges of burglary, § 13-302, subsec. B, A.R.S., and robbery, § 13-641 A.R.S. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence upon the ground that evidence was obtained pursuant to an illegal search and seizure. This motion was argued and denied on 20 April 1971. On 21 April 1971, the day set for trial, defendant withdrew his previously entered pleas of not guilty and entered guilty pleas to two counts of burglary and pursuant to a plea bargain the allegation of a prior conviction was dropped. The court advised the defendant of rights he was entitled to under Boykin, supra, and further addressed the defendant concerning the factual basis for the plea: As to the second count, the court again advised the defendant of his Boykin rights and asked: And: The record shows that on the date of the trial, the State had some 20 witnesses present and available to testify including two key witnesses who were not citizens of the United States, but who nevertheless had come from California at their own expense to testify. The pleas of guilty were accepted by the court. On 20 May, after investigation by the probation officer but before sentencing, the defendant moved to withdraw his pleas. The defendant, with counsel present, testified as follows: The motion was denied. WERE THE BOYKIN REQUIREMENTS MET? We have read the reporter's transcript of the pleas of guilty and we find that the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, supra, have been met and that there is a factual basis for the plea. State v. Darling, 109 Ariz. 148, 506 P.2d 1042, filed this day. MOTION TO SUPPRESS The law in Arizona has long been that a plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defenses. State v. Murphy, 97 Ariz. 14, 396 P.2d 250 (1964). Defendant contends, however, that the plea was involuntary in that the denial of the motion to suppress forced the defendant to plead guilty which he would not have done had the motion been granted. We do not agree. The fact that the defendant feels it is necessary to bargain and plead guilty does not make the plea involuntary. Benn v. Eyman, 9 Cir., 436 F.2d 1074 (1971); United States v. Davis, 9 Cir., 452 F.2d 577 (1971). Having lost the motion, defendant could go to trial and preserve the question of the denial of the motion for appeal or plead guilty and waive the right to contest the denial of the motion. This is what he did here and we will not go back of that plea. MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA The defendant moved to withdraw his plea of guilty before the sentencing and the motion was properly before the court. See State v. Hanley, 108 Ariz. 144, 493 P.2d 1201 (1972). However, once a plea has been properly entered and accepted by the trial *163 court, it is a matter of discretion whether the trial court may grant the motion of the defendant to set aside the plea. In the instant case, defendant contended that (1) he was not guilty and (2) that he did not know he could receive consecutive sentences. The record including the reporter's transcript of the preliminary hearing amply supports the factual basis for the plea and the court was careful to let the defendant know the possible range of the sentencing. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to withdraw the plea. Judgment affirmed. HAYS, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.