State v. Peats

Arizona Supreme Court

State v. Peats

397 P.2d 631, 97 Ariz. 133, 1964 Ariz. LEXIS 210

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 23, 1964

Docket8225

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 397 P.2d 631 (State v. Peats) 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. Peats, 397 P.2d 631, 97 Ariz. 133, 1964 Ariz. LEXIS 210 (Ark. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

BERNSTEIN, Justice.

Appellant appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Pinal County. Appellant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment imposed in the Yuma County Superior Court after his conviction of the crime of first degree murder.

*134 Appellant contends that in a capital offense he was not provided with counsel at every stage of the proceedings. This court has before it the record of proceedings -in the Justice Court and in the Superior'Court. The record shows that appellant claimed to be 17 years old on September 29, 1962. He was remanded to the Juvenile Court which ordered that he should be tried in the Superior Court as an adult, pursuant to Arizona Constitution Art. 6, §15, A.R.S. The record also shows that preliminary hearing was held on the crime of murder on December 3, 1962, at which time appellant waived preliminary hearing in accordance with Rule 17A, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., and was held to answer without bond. Appellant appeared on January 11, 1963 in Superior Court and pled not guilty. At this time he had counsel. The record further shows that from this time forward throughout the course of the trial appellant had counsel at all' times." Counsel continued to represent appellant until March 13, 1963 when a motion for a.new trial was denied, it being the last proceeding in the Superior Court. The record is conclusive that appellant was in jio way denied' his constitutional right to ■have counsel. '

Appellant also contends that the information on which he was tried was fatally defective in that it did' not charge premeditation. This contention is without merit. Macias v. State, 39 Ariz. 303, 6 P.2d 423 ; State v. Woolery, 93 Ariz. 76, 378 P.2d 751.

Judgment affirmed. Writ denied.

• UDALL, C. J., LOCKWOOD, V. C. J., STRUCKMEYER and SCRUGGS, JJ., concurring.

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

BERNSTEIN, Justice.

Appellant appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Pinal County. Appellant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment imposed in the Yuma County Superior Court after his conviction of the crime of first degree murder.

*134 Appellant contends that in a capital offense he was not provided with counsel at every stage of the proceedings. This court has before it the record of proceedings -in the Justice Court and in the Superior'Court. The record shows that appellant claimed to be 17 years old on September 29, 1962. He was remanded to the Juvenile Court which ordered that he should be tried in the Superior Court as an adult, pursuant to Arizona Constitution Art. 6, §15, A.R.S. The record also shows that preliminary hearing was held on the crime of murder on December 3, 1962, at which time appellant waived preliminary hearing in accordance with Rule 17A, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., and was held to answer without bond. Appellant appeared on January 11, 1963 in Superior Court and pled not guilty. At this time he had counsel. The record further shows that from this time forward throughout the course of the trial appellant had counsel at all' times." Counsel continued to represent appellant until March 13, 1963 when a motion for a.new trial was denied, it being the last proceeding in the Superior Court. The record is conclusive that appellant was in jio way denied' his constitutional right to ■have counsel. '

Appellant also contends that the information on which he was tried was fatally defective in that it did' not charge premeditation. This contention is without merit. Macias v. State, 39 Ariz. 303, 6 P.2d 423 ; State v. Woolery, 93 Ariz. 76, 378 P.2d 751.

Judgment affirmed. Writ denied.

• UDALL, C. J., LOCKWOOD, V. C. J., STRUCKMEYER and SCRUGGS, JJ., concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 P.2d 631, 97 Ariz. 133, 1964 Ariz. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-peats-ariz-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack