State v. Gastelum

Arizona Supreme Court

State v. Gastelum

404 P.2d 88, 98 Ariz. 292, 1965 Ariz. LEXIS 277

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 16, 1965

DocketNo. 1396

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 404 P.2d 88 (State v. Gastelum) 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. Gastelum, 404 P.2d 88, 98 Ariz. 292, 1965 Ariz. LEXIS 277 (Ark. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

LOCKWOOD, Chief Justice:

The appellant, who will be hereinafter referred to as the defendant, plead guilty to the crime of illegal sale of heroin. He was sentenced to the Arizona State Prison by the Superior Court of Maricopa County for a term of not less than fifteen years nor more than twenty years. The defendant sold the heroin to one Jesse C. Saenz, an undercover agent for the narcotic division of the State Liquor Department. The offense occurred on April 18, 1963, and the [293]*293defendant was adjudged guilty and sentenced on June 24, 1963.

Paragraph A of § 36-1002.02 A.R.S. as amended in 1961 provides among other things that a person who illegally sells a narcotic drug shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison from five years to life.

The defendant has appealed to this court upon the sole ground that the sentence given defendant is excessive and asks this court to modify the sentence in accordance with § 13-1717(B) A.R.S. His argument is that the sentencing judge gave too much weight to the pre-sentence report of the probation officer, and failed to give sufficient weight to defendant’s assurances that he would kick the habit, and his desire for rehabilitation.

We have heretofore held that the trial court has wide discretion in imposing sentence for a period somewhere between the statutory minimum and maximum, and the reviewing court will uphold the sentence in the absence of clear evidence that that court has abused its power. State v. Caldera, 94 Ariz. 324, 385 P.2d 207. We find no evidence of such abuse.

Judgment affirmed.

STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and BERNSTEIN, J., concur.

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

LOCKWOOD, Chief Justice:

The appellant, who will be hereinafter referred to as the defendant, plead guilty to the crime of illegal sale of heroin. He was sentenced to the Arizona State Prison by the Superior Court of Maricopa County for a term of not less than fifteen years nor more than twenty years. The defendant sold the heroin to one Jesse C. Saenz, an undercover agent for the narcotic division of the State Liquor Department. The offense occurred on April 18, 1963, and the [293]*293defendant was adjudged guilty and sentenced on June 24, 1963.

Paragraph A of § 36-1002.02 A.R.S. as amended in 1961 provides among other things that a person who illegally sells a narcotic drug shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison from five years to life.

The defendant has appealed to this court upon the sole ground that the sentence given defendant is excessive and asks this court to modify the sentence in accordance with § 13-1717(B) A.R.S. His argument is that the sentencing judge gave too much weight to the pre-sentence report of the probation officer, and failed to give sufficient weight to defendant’s assurances that he would kick the habit, and his desire for rehabilitation.

We have heretofore held that the trial court has wide discretion in imposing sentence for a period somewhere between the statutory minimum and maximum, and the reviewing court will uphold the sentence in the absence of clear evidence that that court has abused its power. State v. Caldera, 94 Ariz. 324, 385 P.2d 207. We find no evidence of such abuse.

Judgment affirmed.

STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and BERNSTEIN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 P.2d 88, 98 Ariz. 292, 1965 Ariz. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gastelum-ariz-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack