State v. Jackson

Court of Appeals of Arizona

State v. Jackson

530 P.2d 904, 23 Ariz. App. 58, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 471

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJanuary 21, 1975

DocketNo. 2 CA-CR 467

StatusPublished

This text of 530 P.2d 904 (State v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Jackson, 530 P.2d 904, 23 Ariz. App. 58, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 471 (Ark. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

Appellant contends that his guilty plea should be set aside because the court failed to inform him that by pleading guilty he waived all non-jurisdictional defects. Appellant gives no authority for this contention and we know of no such requirement. We hold that the trial court need not so inform the defendant.

Appellant also contends that his sentence on forgery of from three to four years in the Arizona State Prison is excessive and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the state and federal constitutions. We do not agree. At the time of the instant offense he was on probation in Cochise County under a nine year suspended sentence. His past bad record includes bad checks, embezzling, defrauding an innkeeper, aggravated battery, burglary and interstate transportation of forged securities.

In order to discourage further appeals on the “non-jurisdictional defects” issue we are deciding this case as an opinion.

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY and KRUCKER, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

Appellant contends that his guilty plea should be set aside because the court failed to inform him that by pleading guilty he waived all non-jurisdictional defects. Appellant gives no authority for this contention and we know of no such requirement. We hold that the trial court need not so inform the defendant.

Appellant also contends that his sentence on forgery of from three to four years in the Arizona State Prison is excessive and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the state and federal constitutions. We do not agree. At the time of the instant offense he was on probation in Cochise County under a nine year suspended sentence. His past bad record includes bad checks, embezzling, defrauding an innkeeper, aggravated battery, burglary and interstate transportation of forged securities.

In order to discourage further appeals on the “non-jurisdictional defects” issue we are deciding this case as an opinion.

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY and KRUCKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 P.2d 904, 23 Ariz. App. 58, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jackson-arizctapp-1975.