Title: State v. Munoz
Citation: 110 Ariz. 419, 520 P.2d 291
Docket Number: 2855
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: March 21, 1974

110 Ariz. 419 (1974) 520 P.2d 291 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Mary Delanie MUNOZ, Appellant. No. 2855. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. March 21, 1974. *420 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Stanley L. Patchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. B.L. Helm, Yuma, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of guilt after a guilty plea to the crime of possession of heroin, § 36-1002 A.R.S., and a sentence thereon of not less than four nor more than eight years in the Arizona State Prison. We are asked to answer only one question on appeal and that is: "Was it error and an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to fail to disqualify himself from the sentencing of the defendant?" The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. Defendant was arrested on the 1st day of September 1973 for possession of heroin. On 6 September 1973 the grand jury returned an indictment and the defendant was arraigned in the Superior Court on 12 September 1973. An omnibus hearing was held on 22 October 1973, and on 26 October 1973, the defendant changed her plea from not guilty to guilty. On 16 November 1973, the defendant was sentenced to four to eight years in the Arizona State Prison. At the sentencing the trial judge made the following remarks: Defendant timely filed her appeal on 3 December 1973, and after filing of the record and the memorandum the matter was submitted for decision without oral argument on 1 March 1974. The New Rules of Criminal Procedure under which this case was processed, give the defendant an opportunity for a change of judge "if a fair and impartial hearing or trial cannot be had by reason of the interest or prejudice of the assigned judge." Rule 10.1(a), Rules of Criminal Procedure 1973, 17 A.R.S. The defendant did not make a request for a change of judge. The defendant may not test the water before deciding whether or not to request a change of judge. In the instant case, the desire of the defendant to go back and have another judge resentence after the sentence has been imposed comes too late. State v. Carpenter, 1 Ariz. App. 522, 405 P.2d 460 (1965); State v. Shahan, 17 Ariz. App. 148, 495 P.2d 1355 (1972). It is the contention of the attorney for the defendant, however, that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to disqualify himself by reason of his interest and prejudice. As the quoted portion of the record indicates, the defendant was no stranger to the trial judge and over the years she had been before him as a juvenile and her name had been prominent in other drug related activities in the Yuma area. The statements of the trial judge in sentencing the defendant indicated knowledge of facts that a complete presentence report would have contained. Defendant does not contend that the information was erroneous, and we find no prejudice in the fact that the sentencing judge was already in possession of accurate information concerning the defendant prior to receiving the same information which a presentence report would certainly contain. The record in the case does not show any reason why the sentencing judge should have disqualified himself. We have reviewed the record as required by § 13-1715 A.R.S.; State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233, 393 P.2d 921 (1964). We find no reversible error. Judgment affirmed. HAYS, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.