Court Opinion

ID: 9549809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:25:01.268269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:56.303515
License: Public Domain

KLEINSCHMIDT, Judge,
dissenting.
I concur with the majority except as to validity of the Juvenile’s plea. I believe Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), requires that when a defendant enters a guilty plea he must be informed, in open court, of the constitutional rights he is waiving. As Boykin said, the court should use the “utmost solicitude of which courts are capable in canvassing the matter with the accused.” Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243-44, 89 S.Ct. at 1712.1 One of these Boykin rights is the right to confront the state’s witnesses. In this case, the court neglected to advise the Juvenile that he had the right to confront his accusers and neglected to determine whether the Juvenile understood that right.
It is true that the Juvenile in this case signed an affidavit stating that he was aware of this right and that he understood it. It is also true that State v. Darling, 109 Ariz. 148, 506 P.2d 1042 (1973), allows a review of the whole record to determine whether a defendant understood all the rights he was waiving. Although the affidavit is evidence that the Juvenile understood his rights, it is not a complete substitute for the inquiry the court should have made. Signing a form affidavit does not ensure that a juvenile, who in reality may not have even read it, fully understands its contents. I would remand for a determination, in open court, of whether the Juvenile understood that he was waiving the right to confront his accusers.

. Rule 17.2(c), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically says that the inquiry shall be "in open court.”