Court Opinion

ID: 9793766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:52:44.859174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:49.914766
License: Public Domain

OGG, Judge,
dissents.
I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which would remand this case on the ground that defendant’s constitutional rights may have been violated when he was tried and sentenced in absentia.
At the close of his preliminary hearing he was released on his own recognizance after signing a release order wherein he agreed to appear at all future proceedings. The release order notified the defendant that he had a right to appear at his trial and that proceedings would be held without him if he failed to appear.
The defendant, who was represented by counsel, was advised at his arraignment that his trial was set for November 26, 1975. Although the trial date was later changed there is no showing that the defendant appeared on the scheduled date of trial or made any attempt to ascertain the actual trial date. Rather it appears from the record that after his arraignment the defendant dropped out of sight and has never been seen or heard from by his attorney or any representatives of the court.
It was the defendant’s duty under the conditions of his release to keep in contact with the court and/or his attorney as to trial date and any changes in that date.
It is my opinion that the defendant by his course of conduct waived his appearance at his trial and sentencing. 17 ARS Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 9.1. State v. Goldsmith, 112 Ariz. 399, 542 P.2d 1098 (1975); State v. Davis, Ariz., 562 P.2d 1370 (filed Jan. 17, 1977).
Under the facts of this case I cannot say the trial judge abused his discretion and I would therefore affirm the judgment and sentence.