State v. Ferguson

Arizona Supreme Court

State v. Ferguson

508 P.2d 330, 109 Ariz. 254, 1973 Ariz. LEXIS 319

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedApril 13, 1973

Docket2286

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 508 P.2d 330 (State v. Ferguson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Ferguson, 508 P.2d 330, 109 Ariz. 254, 1973 Ariz. LEXIS 319 (Ark. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

HAYS, Chief Justice.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of furnishing marihuana. Two other charges involving marihuana were dropped and defendant was placed on probation. Sometime thereafter, defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to serve five to ten years in the Arizona State Prison. This appeal was then filed.

By an out-of-context reading of the transcript of the revocation hearing, defendant tries to establish that he was not represented by counsel at that hearing. The minutes of the hearing refer to his counsel by name. The transcript contains a statement as to the presence of counsel by name and sets forth in some detail the exchanges between counsel and the court on questions raised by the court, as well as verbatim reporting of the argument presented by counsel. We find no merit in this assertion.

The other contention raised by defendant is that he was not informed of the charges against him and was not given an opportunity to refute them. The record shows that the Preliminary Order on Revocation of Probation was signed on November 25, 1970, and a copy was sent to the attorney who represented him at the revocation hearing. The hearing was held on December 8, 1970. The bench warrant upon which defendant was arrested indicated that he was being arrested for violation of that condition of probation requiring him to conduct himself as a law-abiding citizen. There was sufficient time al *255 lowed for the defendant’s attorney to apply to the court for more particulars if such were required to meet the charge.

At the hearing there was discussion and argument between the court and defendant’s counsel and defendant himself. No offer was made by the defense to present witnesses or other evidence. There was no request for additional time to meet the specific matters raised by the court. See State v. Maxwell, 97 Ariz. 162, 398 P.2d 548 (1965); State v. Walter, 12 Ariz.App. 282, 469 P.2d 848 (1970).

The order revoking probation and the sentence are affirmed.

CAMERON, V. C. J., and LOCKWOOD, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HAYS, Chief Justice.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of furnishing marihuana. Two other charges involving marihuana were dropped and defendant was placed on probation. Sometime thereafter, defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to serve five to ten years in the Arizona State Prison. This appeal was then filed.

By an out-of-context reading of the transcript of the revocation hearing, defendant tries to establish that he was not represented by counsel at that hearing. The minutes of the hearing refer to his counsel by name. The transcript contains a statement as to the presence of counsel by name and sets forth in some detail the exchanges between counsel and the court on questions raised by the court, as well as verbatim reporting of the argument presented by counsel. We find no merit in this assertion.

The other contention raised by defendant is that he was not informed of the charges against him and was not given an opportunity to refute them. The record shows that the Preliminary Order on Revocation of Probation was signed on November 25, 1970, and a copy was sent to the attorney who represented him at the revocation hearing. The hearing was held on December 8, 1970. The bench warrant upon which defendant was arrested indicated that he was being arrested for violation of that condition of probation requiring him to conduct himself as a law-abiding citizen. There was sufficient time al *255 lowed for the defendant’s attorney to apply to the court for more particulars if such were required to meet the charge.

At the hearing there was discussion and argument between the court and defendant’s counsel and defendant himself. No offer was made by the defense to present witnesses or other evidence. There was no request for additional time to meet the specific matters raised by the court. See State v. Maxwell, 97 Ariz. 162, 398 P.2d 548 (1965); State v. Walter, 12 Ariz.App. 282, 469 P.2d 848 (1970).

The order revoking probation and the sentence are affirmed.

CAMERON, V. C. J., and LOCKWOOD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 P.2d 330, 109 Ariz. 254, 1973 Ariz. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ferguson-ariz-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack