Title: State v. Lawrence
Citation: 112 Ariz. 20, 536 P.2d 1038
Docket Number: 2951
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: June 13, 1975

112 Ariz. 20 (1975) 536 P.2d 1038 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Edward Stanley LAWRENCE, III, Appellant. No. 2951. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. June 13, 1975. Rehearing Denied July 14, 1975. N. Warner Lee, Former Atty. Gen., Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen. by Thomas A. Jacobs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Frank E. Dickey, Jr. and Edward W. Parker, Phoenix, for appellant. CAMERON, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from the conviction of Edward Lawrence III for the crime of second degree murder in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-451, 452 and 453, and a sentence thereon of from 99 years to life in the Arizona State Prison. Defendant, through his attorney, raises some 32 issues on appeal for this court's consideration. Many are without appropriate or adequate citation of authority and most are without merit. We have, however, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233, 393 P.2d 921 (1964) and A.R.S. § 13-1715, considered each and every question raised and we find no reversible or fundamental error. Disregarding those issues clearly unmeritorious, *21 we feel that we must answer the following questions: The facts necessary for a determination of this case are as follows. The defendant Edward Stanley Lawrence III and the victim Linda Faye Lawrence were divorced in June of 1973. The victim had custody of their son about 4 1/2 years of age and defendant was paying $100 a month for support. On the evening of 23 June 1973, the defendant visited the wife and there is some evidence that there was an argument. Defendant returned to his mother's and watched TV. Then, in his mother's presence, defendant tried to telephone his exwife. When there was no answer he returned to his wife's house for the avowed purpose of seeing to the safety of the boy. He entered the house and according to his statement to the police officer found his wife dead on the kitchen floor. He phoned the police at this time. Subsequent investigation revealed that the victim had been strangled to death. The defendant was questioned by the police and a complaint was refused by the County Attorney's Office at that time and the defendant was released. Defendant was finally arrested on 30 October 1973. He was held to answer and the matter was tried to a jury. Although defendant did not testify, his defense appeared to be that he did not commit the crime. He was convicted and appeals. FURTHER DISCLOSURE BY THE STATE After the information was filed in the Superior Court, the prosecutor, pursuant to Rule 15.1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure 1973, made timely disclosure to the defendant. Rule 15.2 provides for discovery by the defendant and reads in part as follows: Defendant's notice of defense read as follows: Later defendant filed a motion to compel additional discovery from the State. At the hearing on this motion the State resisted the motion. The State pointed out that they had, in fact, given the defendant almost everything that the defendant was entitled to and the record before us supports this assertion. The State, however, resisted further discovery on the ground that the defendant had not complied with Rule 15.2. The trial court agreed with the State and so do we. The underlying principle of Rule 15 is adequate notification to the opposition of one's case-in-chief in return for reciprocal discovery so that undue delay and surprise may be avoided at trial by both sides. The rule, to be effective, must be applied with equal force to both the prosecution and the defendant. Indeed, Rule 15.8 recognizes that if Rule 15.2(b) is unenforceable then 15.1(a)(1)(b) and (c) is null and void. The United States Supreme Court has approved this premise that the defendant in a criminal case may, where there is reciprocity of discovery, be required to provide the State with certain information prior to trial: Defendant's notice of defense and disclosure pursuant to Rule 15.2 was wholly insufficient. Rule 15.7 allows the court to "impose any sanction which it finds just" for failure to comply with the notice of defense and disclosure rule. The defendant having elected not to comply with Rule 15.2 he cannot now be heard to complain when the trial court denies him further discovery from the State. The trial court applied a proper sanction in denying the defendant's motion for further discovery. We find no abuse of discretion. WAS THE SENTENCE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION? The defendant received a sentence of 99 years to life which is within the statutory maximum and minimum for the crime of second degree murder (not less than 10 years). A.R.S. § 13-453. We note that the presentence report contained the following: Defendant's lack of remorse as well as his callous attitude was shown by the trial testimony of one of the victim's friends: The sentence was neither excessive nor an abuse of discretion. A.R.S. § 13-1715; State v. Burrell, supra. Judgment affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and LOCKWOOD, HAYS and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.