Title: State v. Dixon

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

111 Ariz. 92 (1974) 523 P.2d 789 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Edward Lee DIXON, Appellant. No. 2915. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. June 26, 1974. Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Cleon M. Duke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. John M. Neis, Pima County Public Defender by Charles J. Babbitt, Asst. Public Defender, Tucson, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of guilty as a result of a plea bargain to the unlawful offer to sell marijuana, § 36-1002.07 A.R.S., and a sentence thereon of not less than seven nor more than ten years to run concurrently with a sentence imposed in another matter. We must answer only one question on appeal and that is whether the court erred in not allowing the defendant to withdraw his previously entered and accepted guilty plea. The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. *93 Defendant entered into negotiation with an undercover narcotics agent to sell some 200 pounds of marijuana at $65.00 a pound. The agent had $13,000 for the purchase which he showed to the defendant. The defendant then went to get the marijuana. The agent was alerted that the defendant planned to "rip off" the agent, that is, take his money without providing the marijuana. The defendant returned with the marijuana in the trunk of an automobile at which time the agent attempted to place the defendant under arrest. The defendant ran and the officer, after being shot at by a person alleged to be the defendant's brother, was able to stop the defendant by shooting him in the leg. Defendant was charged by indictment in four counts: Count I, unlawful furnishing of marijuana, § 36-1002.07 A.R.S.; Count II, unlawful offer to sell marijuana, § 36-1002.07 A.R.S.; Count III, unlawful possession of marijuana for sale, § 36-1002.06 A.R.S.; and Count IV, obstructing justice, § 13-541(A) A.R.S. After denial of motions to suppress and motions attacking the sufficiency of the marijuana laws, the defendant, at the time for trial, indicated a willingness to enter a plea of guilty to the crime of unlawful offer to sell marijuana, in return for which the other counts would be dismissed. At that time the following transpired: After discussing the possible sentence as well as the mandatory term that must be served, the judge questioned the defendant extensively concerning the voluntariness of the plea. The court then informed the defendant further of his rights: The court then questioned the defendant's attorney as to whether the defendant understood what he was doing: After the presentence report was obtained, the defendant, prior to sentencing, indicated a desire to withdraw his plea. The court stated: A reading of the transcript of the plea of guilty indicates that it was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. A reading of the transcript of the plea together with the transcript of the proceedings before the grand jury indicates a factual basis for the plea. State v. Darling, 109 Ariz. 148, 506 P.2d 1042 (1973) and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969). Even though a defendant does not admit that he committed the crime, as long as the trial court is careful to ascertain that there is a factual basis for the plea, a plea of guilty may be properly accepted by the trial court: We hold that the plea of guilty was properly accepted by the court. We further hold that the court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. At the time the defendant entered his plea, Rule 188 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure 1956, was in force and read as follows: In discussing Rule 188, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated: We have reviewed the record and we find no abuse of discretion in the denial by the trial court of defendant's motion to withdraw his previous plea of guilty. Judgment affirmed. HAYS, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.