State v. Robles

Arizona Supreme Court

State v. Robles

516 P.2d 320, 110 Ariz. 184, 1973 Ariz. LEXIS 468

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 3, 1973

Docket2659

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 516 P.2d 320 (State v. Robles) 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. Robles, 516 P.2d 320, 110 Ariz. 184, 1973 Ariz. LEXIS 468 (Ark. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

STRUCKMEYER, Justice.

On September 21, 1972, defendant, Fernando Lopez Robles, was charged by indictment with the sale of heroin on March 9, 1972. Robles’ trial began on November 8, 1972 and was concluded with the finding of guilty by the jury on November 9, 1972. His single assignment of error on appeal is that while the asserted sale occurred on March 9th, he was not, in fact, arrested until some five months later on August 25, 1972; and that, because of the long delay between the commission of the asserted offense and the actual trial, the ability to recall the events occurring on March 9th were lessened, both as to himself and one of the State’s witnesses.

Defendant relies on Ross v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 349 F.2d 210 (1965), a case almost identical to that presented here. We, however, have placed this jurisdiction among those contrary thereto, holding that the right to speedy trial attaches at the time the accused is held to answer, and that there has been no denial of due process of law prior to that stage of the case. State v. Rhodes, 104 Ariz. 451, 454 P.2d 993 (1969).

Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Marion, *185 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971), has held that:

“On its face the protection of the [Sixth] Amendment is activated only when a criminal prosecution has begun and extends only to those persons who have been ‘accused’ in the course of that prosecution. * * *

Our attention is called to nothing in the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment indicating that it does not mean what it appears to say, * % * »

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

HAYS, C. J., CAMERON, V. C. J., and LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.

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

STRUCKMEYER, Justice.

On September 21, 1972, defendant, Fernando Lopez Robles, was charged by indictment with the sale of heroin on March 9, 1972. Robles’ trial began on November 8, 1972 and was concluded with the finding of guilty by the jury on November 9, 1972. His single assignment of error on appeal is that while the asserted sale occurred on March 9th, he was not, in fact, arrested until some five months later on August 25, 1972; and that, because of the long delay between the commission of the asserted offense and the actual trial, the ability to recall the events occurring on March 9th were lessened, both as to himself and one of the State’s witnesses.

Defendant relies on Ross v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 349 F.2d 210 (1965), a case almost identical to that presented here. We, however, have placed this jurisdiction among those contrary thereto, holding that the right to speedy trial attaches at the time the accused is held to answer, and that there has been no denial of due process of law prior to that stage of the case. State v. Rhodes, 104 Ariz. 451, 454 P.2d 993 (1969).

Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Marion, *185 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971), has held that:

“On its face the protection of the [Sixth] Amendment is activated only when a criminal prosecution has begun and extends only to those persons who have been ‘accused’ in the course of that prosecution. * * *

Our attention is called to nothing in the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment indicating that it does not mean what it appears to say, * % * »

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

HAYS, C. J., CAMERON, V. C. J., and LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 P.2d 320, 110 Ariz. 184, 1973 Ariz. LEXIS 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robles-ariz-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack