Title: State v. Collins
Citation: 104 Ariz. 449, 454 P.2d 991
Docket Number: 1865
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: June 4, 1969

104 Ariz. 449 (1969) 454 P.2d 991 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Lee Roy COLLINS and Robert L. Chipps, Appellants. No. 1865. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Division. June 4, 1969. Rehearing Denied July 8, 1969. Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Darrell F. Smith, Former Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Vernon B. Croaff, Public Defender, Grant Laney, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. HAYS, Justice. The appellants were both charged with robbery and after a trial by a jury were found guilty of that charge. The principal witness against them was an Arthur Haslip who testified that while he was walking to work at the railroad yards near 7th Street and the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing in Phoenix, Arizona, he was robbed by two men. He further testified that he was grabbed by the collar by one of the men and a pocket knife was pointed at him. He was compelled to give them the money he had in his pocket which was the sum of .35 or .40 cents. They looked at his billfold which was empty. After the robbery the victim immediately went to his foreman and reported the occurrence. A police officer was summoned and Haslip gave him a description of the two men. An hour or so later the police officer saw two men answering that description just north of 2nd Street and Jefferson. He placed them under arrest for vagrancy and brought them back for identification by the victim. The two men identified by the victim that night were the appellants, Collins and Chipps. At the time of trial Haslip again identified the appellants as being the two men who robbed him. In the opening brief appellants raised basically two questions: 1) Was there sufficient evidence to prove the appellants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and was the verdict of the jury contrary to the law *450 or the weight of the evidence? 2) Were the constitutional rights of the appellants violated when they were brought to the victim for identification? At the time of oral argument the appellants were permitted to file a memorandum and raise an additional point: Were the appellants deprived of a fair trial because they were both represented by the same counsel, and does a defendant have the right to decide whether he desires to be represented by his own separate counsel. With regard to the first point raised we need but quote from State v. Bearden, 99 Ariz. 1, 405 P.2d 885 (1965), where we said: The evidence as set forth in the statement of facts reveals that there is substantial evidence to support the verdict and it is not contrary to law. On the second point, regarding the identification of the appellants by the victim following the robbery, we refer to State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 453 P.2d 951, (#1899 filed April 30, 1969), in which we engaged in a thorough discussion of Wade v. United States, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (1966); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S. Ct. 1951, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178 (1966); and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S. Ct. 1967, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1199 (1966). In State v. Dessureault, supra, 104 Ariz. at page 384, 453 P.2d at page 955, we said: *451 The in-court identification was not challenged at the trial level here, hence we shall presume that the prior identification did not taint the in-court identification. The final point raised by appellants as to the representation of both defendants by the same public defender, has been covered by this court in State v. Kruchten, 101 Ariz. 186, 417 P.2d 510 (1966). At page 199 of the Arizona Reports (page 523 P.2d), we find a compilation of late cases setting forth situations where there was, and was not, a conflict. One of these cases, Lugo v. United States, 350 F.2d 858, C.A. 9, (1965), sets forth language which is most applicable to the subject case: Appellants in their additional memorandum raising this final question did not point out any true conflict of interest, nor does one appear from the record. Appellants received the effective assistance of counsel. Affirmed. STRUCKMEYER and McFARLAND, JJ., concur.