Opinion ID: 2606508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: armed robbery counts

Text: Defense counsel claims there was an insufficient factual basis to support defendant's guilty pleas to each of the armed robbery counts. Specifically, counsel argues that the element of intent, required by the robbery statute, § 13-1902, has not been established. In Arizona, judgment may be entered on a guilty plea only after the court determines that a factual basis exists for each element of the crime to which the plea is made. Rule 17.3, Ariz.R.Crim.Proc., 17 A.R.S.; State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. 453, 454-55, 543 P.2d 441, 442-43 (1975). While this factual basis need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the court still must find strong evidence of guilt. State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91, 93, 688 P.2d 983, 985 (1984). The evidence may be derived from the record as a whole or any part thereof, including defendant's admissions and statements. Id.; State v. McVay, 131 Ariz. 369, 373, 641 P.2d 857, 861 (1982). Where, however, no factual basis exists in the record to support the elements of the crime to which the plea is made, conviction on a guilty plea cannot be sustained. State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. at 455, 543 P.2d at 443. In the instant case, defendant pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery. Thus, to establish a factual basis for the pleas, it must be shown that defendant (1) while armed with a deadly weapon, (2) took property from another person against that person's will, and (3) in the course of taking the property, defendant threatened or used force against that person with the intent to deprive them of their property. A.R.S. §§ 13-1902, -1904. Stated otherwise, there must be evidence establishing that defendant's intent to commit robbery was coexistent with his use of force. At the time of defendant's plea, the state introduced admissions made by defendant following his arrest. The trial court considered this evidence and found a factual basis for the armed robbery counts. Amidst his confessions, the following exchanges took place between defendant and various detectives: DEFENDANT: I knew I had to kill her. DETECTIVE: Why did you have to kill her, Jim? DEFENDANT: I killed her children.       DETECTIVE: Besides taking money from Susan, did you take anything else? DEFENDANT: Uh no just money. DETECTIVE: How much money did you take? DEFENDANT: I don't know, ten dollars? DETECTIVE: And where was the money? DEFENDANT: In her wallet. DETECTIVE: Did you take the money after she was killed? DEFENDANT: Yes.       DETECTIVE: After you killed Susan what did you do in the house? DEFENDANT: I grabbed my pack of clothes, I took what money she had ... DETECTIVE: Are you telling me that you stole money from Susan? DEFENDANT: ... Yeah. DETECTIVE: The money wasn't yours? DEFENDANT: No. DETECTIVE: Did she owe you money? DEFENDANT: No. DETECTIVE: Why did you steal her money? DEFENDANT: I needed to, I wanted to get drunk. DETECTIVE: Why did you want to get drunk? DEFENDANT: I guess I'm just a drunk. Based on these and other statements in the record, we fail to find a factual basis to support the element of intent required by A.R.S. § 13-1902. Although, as the state argues, defendant may have planned that morning to get drunk following the murders, we do not believe that defendant's use of force upon Susan was intended to coerce surrender of her money and truck. Instead, defendant's decision to take these items occurred only after Susan was dead. While defendant's actions may render him liable for another crime, the takings did not amount to armed robbery. Thus, as the record lacks sufficiently strong evidence of guilt as to the armed robbery charges, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding a factual basis for these crimes. We therefore hold that defendant's guilty pleas to the two counts of armed robbery must be vacated.