Title: State v. Stadie
Citation: 112 Ariz. 196, 540 P.2d 668
Docket Number: 2987
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: September 25, 1975

112 Ariz. 196 (1975) 540 P.2d 668 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Harry STADIE, Appellant. No. 2987. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division. September 25, 1975. Rehearing Denied October 21, 1975. Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by Galen H. Wilkes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. W. Edward Morgan, Tucson, for appellant. CAMERON, Chief Justice. This is an appeal by defendant, Harry Stadie, from a sentence of 5 to 8 years for transportation of marijuana, without possibility of parole for three years pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-1002.07 and from the denial of defendant's motion for reconsideration of the sentence. We must answer the following questions on appeal: The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. On 9 August 1973 defendants, Harry Stadie, Jose Francisco Maytorena and Albert Quiroz, were indicted for unlawful transportation of marijuana and unlawful sale of marijuana. Stadie was also indicted for using a minor for traffic in marijuana, unlawful sale of dangerous drugs, unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, and three counts of unlawfully offering to sell narcotics. Pursuant to plea bargain negotiations, Stadie entered a plea of guilty to the crimes of unlawful offer to sell narcotics, A.R.S. § 36-1002.02; unlawful sale of dangerous drugs, A.R.S. § 32-1970(B) and A.R.S. § 32-1996(C); unlawful transportation of marijuana, A.R.S. § 36-1002.07; and a plea of no contest to the crime of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, A.R.S. § 36-1002. All of the other charges against Stadie were dismissed. A mitigation hearing was held on 4 March 1974, and Stadie was then sentenced to a term of not less than five nor more than eight years in the Arizona State Prison for the unlawful transportation of marijuana. Imposition of sentence for the other counts was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for a period of five years without any official supervision. On 26 August 1974 and 3 September 1974, the Honorable Robert Roylston heard Stadie's motion to vacate judgment. The motion was denied and from this judgment defendant appeals. DOES A.R.S. § 36-1002.07 CONSTITUTE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT? A.R.S. § 36-1002.07(A) provides that: Appellant argues that the portion of this statute which prevents the granting of parole to a first offender until completion of three years of the sentence is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, § 15 of the Arizona Constitution. We disagree. We have stated: This court has also rejected the argument that application of A.R.S. § 36-1002.07 to a first offender constituted cruel and unusual punishment: We have read the record including the hearing in mitigation, the motion to set aside and the sentencing and we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in sentencing. DID THE STATE FAIL TO KEEP ITS PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT? The record reveals that a plea agreement was entered into. Four of the eight counts of the indictment were dismissed by the state in return for defendant's plea of guilty to the unlawful sale of dangerous drugs, unlawful transportation of marijuana and unlawful offer to sell narcotics, and his plea of no contest to the crime of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug. As part of his plea bargain negotiations, appellant alleges that he provided the Pima County Attorney's Office with information concerning the possible commission of certain capital crimes with the understanding that this information would not be used for or against him. Appellant argues that the State breached the plea bargain agreement by disclosing this information, when it played a tape for the Honorable Robert Roylston at the motion to vacate judgment. The State is bound by a plea bargain which induces a guilty plea. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S. Ct. 495, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1971); State v. Richard, 109 Ariz. 65, 505 P.2d 236 (1973); State v. Stone, 111 Ariz. 62, 523 P.2d 493 (1974). From the record before us, we would have no difficulty in holding that defendant has failed to show that there was in fact a breach of the plea bargain. Even if that be the case, however, there is no showing of prejudice in the sentencing. The defendant was sentenced on 4 March 1974. Since there was no mention or discussion of the tape until it was played at the motion to vacate judgment on 3 September 1974, the tape had no impact or influence on the trial judge's determination of the sentence. The facts of this case do not bring the defendant within Santobello. We find no error. Judgment affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and HAYS, J., concurring.