Title: State v. Brown
Citation: 112 Ariz. 29, 536 P.2d 1047
Docket Number: 3166-PR
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: June 13, 1975

112 Ariz. 29 (1975) 536 P.2d 1047 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. John Henry BROWN, Appellant. No. 3166-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. June 13, 1975. Rehearing Denied July 14, 1975. *30 Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen. by Cleon M. Duke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Chief Justice. We granted this petition for review for the sole purpose of resolving an apparent conflict in the Rules of Criminal Procedure 1973, 17 A.R.S., and particularly the Comments thereto, with respect to the appellate remedy available to a defendant whose probation has been revoked pursuant to Rule 27 of said rules. The limited facts necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows. Defendant, after hearing pursuant to Rule 27, had his probation revoked and a sentence of not less than three nor more than five years in the Arizona State Prison imposed. From the order revoking his probation, he appealed to the Court of Appeals, Division One. The Court of Appeals considered all of the issues raised by the defendant adverse to his position and affirmed the revocation and the sentence imposed thereon. We agree with the disposition of the Court of Appeals as to these matters. Before disposing of the matters raised by the defendant, the Court of Appeals sua sponte determined whether it had the jurisdiction to consider the matter by way of appeal. This was done in light of a decision of Division Two of the Court of Appeals, State v. Corrales, 22 Ariz. App. 516, 528 P.2d 1275 (1974) which held that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction in an appeal from a revocation of probation and imposition of sentence because the sole remedy was by way of post-conviction procedure pursuant to Rule 32. In the instant case, after considering the alternatives and the conflicts, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant could follow either route either an appeal pursuant to Rule 31 or post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32. Rule 27.7(d) reads as follows: And the Comment to subsection 27.7(e) reads in part as follows: This Comment is bolstered by Rule 32.1, Scope of Remedy, which includes in the Comment to (d): *31 Were these Comments the only authority in the Rules we would agree with the statement of the Court of Appeals, Division Two, as follows: Division One of the Court of Appeals, however, went further in the instant case and noted the language of Rule 27.7(d) itself which reads in part "If probation is revoked, the court shall pronounce sentence in accordance with the procedures set forth in Rules 26.10 through 26.16." Rule 26.11 provides that after pronouncing sentence pursuant to Rules 26.10 and 26.16 that the court shall (a) "inform the defendant of his right to appeal from the * * * sentence * * * and advise him that failure to file a timely appeal will result in the loss of the right to appeal," and (c) "hand the defendant a written notice of these rights and the procedures he must follow to exercise them * * *." In the instant case the Court of Appeals noted: We have deleted the conflicting Comments to Rule 27.7(e) and Rule 32.1(d) and after the effective date of the changes in the Rules of Criminal Procedure 1973, 1 August 1975, the defendant will have to proceed by way of appeal pursuant to Rule 31, rather than petition for review pursuant to Rule 32. This is, we believe, a more logical way to proceed since after a trial or the hearing and disposition on the petition to revoke probation pursuant to Rule 27, there is a complete record upon which to base an appeal and another hearing as provided by Rule 32 is unnecessary. It should be noted, however, this does not prevent, as the Court of Appeals, Division One, has noted: We agree with the resolution of this matter by the Court of Appeals, Division One, based on existing Comments, and pending a change in the Comments to these rules which will become effective 1 August 1975, a person dissatisfied with a revocation of his probation and sentence thereon may proceed pursuant to Rule 31 or Rule 32. The judgment of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One, except as to those parts which may be in conflict with this opinion, is approved. STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and LOCKWOOD, HAYS and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.