Title: State v. Celaya

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

107 Ariz. 175 (1971) 484 P.2d 7 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Joe CELAYA, Appellant. No. 2047. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. April 26, 1971. *176 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Former Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Norval W. Jasper, Tucson, for appellant. CAMERON, Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment after a plea of guilty for the unlawful sale of marijuana (§ 36-1002.07 A.R.S.). We are called upon to determine: The defendant-appellant, Joe Celaya, was informed against under Count I for the crime of unlawful sale of marijuana. § 36-1002.07 A.R.S., and under Count II for the crime of unlawful possession of marijuana, § 36-1002.05 A.R.S. The defendant pleaded "not guilty" to both counts at his 11 February 1969 arraignment. At the day set for trial, 27 March 1969, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea of not guilty, and he entered a plea of "guilty" as to Count I. Count II of the information was dismissed upon motion by the State. The defendant was sentenced to a term of not less than five and not more than seven years in the Arizona State Prison. WAS THE PLEA INTELLIGENTLY MADE? First, defendant argues that the guilty plea proceeding violated the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969), in that "* * * the record is absent any showing that his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea were explained to him by the Court, * * *." The rule in Arizona has always been that a plea of guilty must be voluntarily and understandingly made and without coercion, Benton v. United States, 352 F.2d 59 (9 Cir.1965); State v. Olbekson, 7 Ariz. App. 474, 441 P.2d 71 (1968); State v. Murphy, 97 Ariz. 14, 396 P.2d 250 (1964); Silver v. State, 37 Ariz. 418, 295 P. 311 (1931). The United States Supreme Court in Boykin v. Alabama, supra, stated that the record must affirmatively show that the plea of guilty is intelligently and voluntarily made. Thus, the United States Supreme Court imposed additional requirements as to the method we could use in determining whether a guilty plea was intelligent, voluntary, and uncoerced. *177 The plea in this case occurred before the United States Supreme Court case of Boykin v. Alabama, supra, and we have held that Boykin is not to be applied retroactively in Arizona. State v. Griswold, 105 Ariz. 1, 457 P.2d 331 (1969). We think the record shows that the defendant did voluntarily and intelligently enter his plea of guilty to the charge of unlawful sale of marijuana. The following examination took place when the defendant moved to change his plea to guilty: *178 As shown above, the trial court expressly inquired of the defendant whether his plea was freely and voluntarily given. Most importantly, we think that when a defendant has changed his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty" as a result of plea bargaining, and when his attorney testifies that on two occasions he has explained at great length and in great detail to the defendant all the relevant factors involved in the change of plea, then common sense dictates that an intelligent plea was given. See State v. McCallister, 107 Ariz. 143, 483 P.2d 558, filed 15 April 1971. Petitioner has made no claim that he was misled by his own attorney, by the prosecuting attorney, or by the court. We agree with the philosophy expressed in People v. Ferguson, 383 Mich. 645, 178 N.W.2d 490, 493 (1970): WAS THE SENTENCE EXCESSIVE? Secondly, defendant argues that his sentence of not less than five nor more than seven years was excessive and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Defendant bases this on the fact that he was only 19 years of age, that he had no prior record of any involvement with drugs or narcotics, that the amount of marijuana involved was small, and on the belief that his socio-economic background as a reservation Indian has resulted in his being of much less than normal intelligence. The general rule is that the pronouncing of sentence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that the sentence will be upheld if it is within the statutory limits unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Carpenter, 105 Ariz. 504, 467 P.2d 749 (1970); State v. Horton, 101 Ariz. 229, 418 P.2d 385 (1966); State v. Bradley, 99 Ariz. 328, 409 P.2d 35 (1965). § 36-1002.07, subsec. A, A.R.S. provides that such a crime "* * * shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison from five years to life * * *." The sentence of not less than five nor more than seven years was within the statutory limits for a first offense conviction of the unlawful sale of marijuana. MAY THE DEFENDANT SEE THE PRESENTENCE REPORT? Thirdly, the defendant argues that it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit the defendant's attorney to examine the presentence report prior to the actual sentencing and that such refusal violated the rights of defendant and denied him equal protection of the laws. We discussed this problem in State v. Nelson and adopted the following rule: Accord, State v. Scanlon, 104 Ariz. 187, 450 P.2d 377 (1969); State v. Scott, 11 Ariz. App. 68, 461 P.2d 712 (1970); State v. Williams, 13 Ariz. App. 201, 475 P.2d 293 (1970). Although there are cases to the contrary (see State v. Kunz, 55 N.J. 128, 259 A.2d 895 [1969] for a good discussion of the problem generally), in Arizona it is a matter of discretion as to whether to permit a defendant or his attorney to inspect a presentence report. The practice in the vast majority of federal courts has also been to leave the choice of disclosure or nondisclosure to the discretion of the trial judge. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c); United States v. Warren, 432 F.2d 772 (5 Cir.1970); United States v. Virga, 426 F.2d 1320 (2 Cir.1970); United States v. Gross, 416 F.2d 1205 (8 Cir.1969). Judgment affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., HAYS, V.C.J., and UDALL and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.