Court Opinion

ID: 9792728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:35:11.15502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:44.839373
License: Public Domain

MARTONE, Justice,
dissenting.
Because an appeal is inconsistent with the idea of settling a case, we amended the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure to prohibit appeals from pleas of guilty, no contest, and admissions to probation violations. Because the constitution accords a right to appeal, we created formal waiver procedures. Rule 17.2(e), Ariz.R.Crim.P., and Rule 27.8(e), Ariz.R.Crim.P., require the judge to expressly tell the defendant that he or she will be waiving the right of direct appeal if the defendant chooses to plead guilty or no contest, or admits to a probation violation. There is nothing in art. 2, § 24 of the constitution that says that the right of appeal cannot be waived. As long as it is a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver, it is like every other right articulated in art. 2, § 24 (jury trial, counsel et al).
State v. Ethington, 121 Ariz. 572, 592 P.2d 768 (1979), is not to the contrary. It simply held that the right to appeal was not negotiable in a plea agreement and that as a matter of public policy “a defendant will be permitted to bring a timely appeal from a conviction notwithstanding an agreement not to appeal.” The case addressed a simple agreement in a plea bargain and “public policy.” It did not address a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver in front of a judge pursuant to Rule 27.8(e), Ariz. R.Crim.P., as amended. In short, Ething-*125ton stands for the proposition that the constitutional right to appeal is too important to be allowed to be contracted away, but says nothing about a formal waiver pursuant to the rules. “Public policy” is now articulated in the rules.
Collateral review by way of Rule 32, Ariz.R.Crim.P. post-conviction relief, is not an appeal. It is more limited. It does, however, provide a safeguard against defective plea or admission proceedings. Rule 32.4(d) requires the court to order “those portions of the record prepared that it deems necessary to resolve the issues to be raised in the petition.” (emphasis added). Today the court reads the words “portions,” and “it” right out of the rule.
The fact of the matter is that in every instance in which a defendant makes any showing at all, the court will order the transcript under Rule 32.4(d). To suggest that a transcript must be made in every case suggests that the trial court will conduct an Anders review. I do not believe that any trial judge believes that our amendments require them to perform An-ders reviews in these cases. It is not too much to ask the defendant to tell the trial judge what went wrong before a transcript is prepared.
Because today’s decision is inconsistent with our new rules, I dissent.