State v. Parker

Court of Appeals of Arizona

State v. Parker

505 P.2d 278, 19 Ariz. App. 110, 1973 Ariz. App. LEXIS 451

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJanuary 11, 1973

DocketNo. 1 CA-CR 455

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 505 P.2d 278 (State v. Parker) 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. Parker, 505 P.2d 278, 19 Ariz. App. 110, 1973 Ariz. App. LEXIS 451 (Ark. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

HAIRE, Judge.

Defendant Billy Earl Parker was initially charged with first degree burglary and aggravated battery. At his arraignment he pled not guilty to both charges. Thereafter, the state filed a motion to add an allegation of prior conviction. Subsequently, defendant came before the court again, indicating his desire to plead guilty to the charge of first degree burglary with the state to withdraw its allegation of prior conviction and to dismiss the charge of aggravated battery. His plea of guilty was accepted by the court and he was then sentenced to not less than five nor more than seven years in the Arizona State Prison.

On appeal, defendant has been represented by appointed counsel, and a brief has been filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969).

The only arguable question presented on appeal is whether or not the record shows that the trial court adequately established that the defendant understood the nature of the charges against him. In essence, this is the "elements of the crime” argument which has been previously presented to and rejected by this Court on numerous occasions. See State v. Fulper, 16 Ariz. App. 357, 493 P.2d 524 (1972); State v. Liden, 16 Ariz.App. 238, 492 P.2d 734 (1972) ; State v. Moreno, 16 Ariz.App. 191, 492 P.2d 440 (1972) ; State v. Jackson, 14 Ariz.App. 594, 485 P.2d 583 (1971). The record fully establishes a factual basis adequate to support the plea.

As required by A.R.S. § 13-1715, we have examined the record for fundamental error and find none. The judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

JACOBSON, C. J., Division 1, and EU-BANK, P. J., Department B, concur.

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

HAIRE, Judge.

Defendant Billy Earl Parker was initially charged with first degree burglary and aggravated battery. At his arraignment he pled not guilty to both charges. Thereafter, the state filed a motion to add an allegation of prior conviction. Subsequently, defendant came before the court again, indicating his desire to plead guilty to the charge of first degree burglary with the state to withdraw its allegation of prior conviction and to dismiss the charge of aggravated battery. His plea of guilty was accepted by the court and he was then sentenced to not less than five nor more than seven years in the Arizona State Prison.

On appeal, defendant has been represented by appointed counsel, and a brief has been filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969).

The only arguable question presented on appeal is whether or not the record shows that the trial court adequately established that the defendant understood the nature of the charges against him. In essence, this is the "elements of the crime” argument which has been previously presented to and rejected by this Court on numerous occasions. See State v. Fulper, 16 Ariz. App. 357, 493 P.2d 524 (1972); State v. Liden, 16 Ariz.App. 238, 492 P.2d 734 (1972) ; State v. Moreno, 16 Ariz.App. 191, 492 P.2d 440 (1972) ; State v. Jackson, 14 Ariz.App. 594, 485 P.2d 583 (1971). The record fully establishes a factual basis adequate to support the plea.

As required by A.R.S. § 13-1715, we have examined the record for fundamental error and find none. The judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

JACOBSON, C. J., Division 1, and EU-BANK, P. J., Department B, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 P.2d 278, 19 Ariz. App. 110, 1973 Ariz. App. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-parker-arizctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack