Title: State v. Carlisle
Citation: 111 Ariz. 233, 527 P.2d 278
Docket Number: 2974
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: October 15, 1974

111 Ariz. 233 (1974) 527 P.2d 278 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Ricardo Leslie CARLISLE, Appellant. No. 2974. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. October 15, 1974. Rehearing Denied November 19, 1974. N. Warner Lee, Atty. Gen., by Cleon M. Duke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by H. Allen Gerhardt, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of guilt to the crime of murder in the second degree, §§ 13-451 and 13-452 A.R.S., and a sentence thereon of not less than 10 nor more than 30 years in the Arizona State Prison. § 13-453(B) A.R.S. Defendant raises only one question on appeal and that is whether or not the court abided by the agreement made by the defendant and the prosecutor regarding the submission of the matter for decision by the trial court without a trial based upon the reporter's transcript of the preliminary hearing. The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. Defendant was arrested on an open charge *234 of murder. At the omnibus hearing prior to trial, the following transpired: At this point the defendant's attorney proceeded to question extensively the defendant concerning the rights he was waiving by such procedure. During this questioning defendant's attorney asked: And: The reporter's transcript of the preliminary hearing indicated that the medical report had been introduced into evidence but that the Police Departmental Reports, though made available to defendant's attorney, were not admitted into evidence. On 15 April 1974 the court entered the following order as reflected by the minute entries: The record is silent until 10 May 1974 when the court entered the following minute entry order: Later on the same day the following order, as reflected by the minutes, was made: At the time of the sentencing the defendant asked permission to withdraw his plea, although a plea had not in fact been entered, and wanted to proceed to trial. Defendant protested his innocence, and even though he did not attack the proceeding for failure of the court to live up to the agreement, the matter was discussed, the county attorney stating: We can only read the intention of the parties as gleaned from the record before us and that record is void of any indication that the parties intended that the matter be submitted on any record other than the reporter's transcript of the preliminary hearing. The State contends, however, that the Note to Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure 1973 infers that a submission on the reporter's transcript includes police departmental reports. Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure 1973 reads as follows: Comment to this rule [19.1(a)] reads as follows: We do not disagree that the parties and the court could have submitted the matter on the reporter's transcript plus the police departmental reports as the rule and comment thereto clearly indicates could be done. But the rule does not require that the police reports be included absent an agreement that they be considered along with the reporter's transcript of the preliminary hearing. The United States Supreme Court has held that the prosecution must live up to agreements made with the defendant in return for defendant's waiver of his right, Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S. Ct. 495, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1971), and we believe this should apply to the court in agreements made by the court and the defendant with the prosecution. In the instant case, the clear import of the agreement made by defendant as his side of the bargain with the prosecution and the court was that if the court found from the preliminary hearing transcript that the defendant was guilty of other than murder (either first or second degree) then and in that event the court would not make a finding of guilt as to manslaughter, but that the matter would go to trial. The court having found from the reporter's transcript that the defendant was only guilty of manslaughter had to set the matter for trial. When the court and the prosecution tried to go outside the transcript, they failed to live up to the agreement with the defendant and the defendant must prevail on appeal. The judgment and guilt and sentence thereon are set aside and vacated, and the matter is remanded for new trial. HAYS, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.