Court Opinion

ID: 9628543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:23:58.638782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:14.303050
License: Public Domain

CAMERON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
At the plea entered pursuant to defendant’s plea bargain, the following transpired:
THE COURT: Are you also prepared to admit that you have two prior felony convictions?
DEFENDANT JOHNSON: Your Honor, I am not sure about that. The way it’s worded there it says two counts of bank robbery.
THE COURT: Is that true or not true?
DEFENDANT JOHNSON: It’s not true.
MR. BALKAN: Your Honor, we have discussed this. This — the defendant was convicted in Federal Court of two counts arising out of the same incident. I guess there was one bank robbery. And I am not familiar with their code. But it appears that one was a count of bank robbery, and the other count was a count of discharging a firearm while in the commission of a felony. But it did arise out of one incident. And Mr. Johnson has been shown a copy of the judgment and commitment from District Court, and we can make that available to this Court.
THE COURT: Just tell me what is the case number and when did the convictions occur.
MR. BALKAN: Okay. The case number is C-18006. The copy was certified December 22nd, 1981. The conviction was on May 20th, 1968, in Phoenix, Arizona.
THE COURT: Mr. Johnson, were you represented by an attorney at the time of those two prior convictions?
DEFENDANT JOHNSON: Yes, I was.
There is, in my mind, no question that the defendant was previously involved in a bank robbery, and that he was convicted *226for such robbery in the federal court, me fact that under the federal statute one series of acts supported two convictions, one for bank robbery and one for discharging a firearm in the commission of a bank robbery, should make no difference. There was a factual basis for each of the two prior convictions.
The defendant was represented by competent counsel. Had he chosen to go to trial, in addition to the third degree burglary count, defendant would have faced prosecution on one count of first degree burglary and two counts of armed robbery. Additionally, he would have been confronted with sentence enhancement as to all counts on account of his federal conviction(s) for bank robbery. It appears that he or his attorney made a favorable bargain. I find it difficult to construe defendant’s guilty plea as anything but intelligently and understanding^ entered. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 164, 27 L.Ed.2d 162, 168 (1970); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 279 (1969). I also agree with the Court of Appeals that there was a valid waiver in this case:
Aside from the legal bar inherent in the defendant’s judicial admission, other cogent reasons exist for imposing a waiver. The defendant entered into a solemn agreement whereby he obtained substantial benefits (the dismissal of three class 2 felonies), on the basis that the two prior convictions were valid. At the time when the trier of fact could have resolved the issue of the validity of the consideration accepted by the state (a sentence contingent upon the validity of the prior convictions), the defendant not only did not ask for an inquiry to be made, he actively participated in a course of conduct which would lead the trier of race to Deueve that such an inquiry was not necessary. This is the stuff of which estoppel is made. On appeal it is simply too late to urge that the premise upon which all the parties, including the court, acted in good faith was fallacious. All equitable considerations require that the defendant having made his bed must now lie in it.
I have no quarrel with the obvious meaning of Rule 17.6, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., as expressed by the majority. However, where as here, a defendant has made a rational and informed choice among alternatives, I believe such a defendant’s admission should suffice to meet the “factual basis” requirement of Rule 17.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, as incorporated by Rule 17.6. Because I feel that a “factúal basis” can be found, I believe that this case can be reconciled with those relied upon by the majority. State v. Canaday, 119 Ariz. 335, 580 P.2d 1189 (1978); State v. Norris, 113 Ariz. 558, 558 P.2d 903 (1976); State v. Carr, 112 Ariz. 453, 543 P.2d 441 (1975); State v. Hickey, 110 Ariz. 527, 521 P.2d 614 (1974).
I recognize that my interpretation of the facts in this case is at odds with State v. Draper, 123 Ariz. 399, 599 P.2d 852 (App.1979), as to the issue of whether the defendant waived his right to challenge the factual basis of his prior convictions. I believe, however, that the approach later adopted by the Court of Appeals in this case is better reasoned.