Home/Supreme Court/Tacon v. Arizona

Tacon v. Arizona

410 U.S. 351, 93 S. Ct. 998, 35 L. Ed. 2d 346, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 109
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 21, 1973
Docket71-6060
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 410 U.S. 351 (Tacon v. Arizona) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tacon v. Arizona, 410 U.S. 351, 93 S. Ct. 998, 35 L. Ed. 2d 346, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 109 (1973).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, while a soldier in the United States Army stationed at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, was arrested and charged by state authorities with the sale of marihuana in violation of applicable state law. Prior to his trial on this charge, the petitioner was discharged from the Army and voluntarily left Arizona for New York. When the trial date was set, the petitioner’s court-appointed attorney so advised the petitioner and requested him to return to Arizona. Assertedly because he lacked travel funds, the petitioner did not appear in Arizona on the date set for trial. Under these circumstances, the trial proceeded without the petitioner’s presence, as authorized by state procedure. The jury returned a guilty verdict. After the verdict was rendered, the petitioner obtained the necessary travel funds and returned to Arizona in time for his sentencing. He was sentenced to not less than five [352]*352nor more than five and one-half years in prison. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. 107 Ariz. 353, 488 P. 2d 973 (1971).

The petition for certiorari in this case presented questions as to constitutional limits on the States’ authority to try in absentia a person who has voluntarily left the State and is unable, for financial reasons, to return to that State. Upon reviewing the record, however, it appears that these broad questions were not raised by the petitioner below nor passed upon by the Arizona Supreme Court. We cannot decide issues raised for the first time here. Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437 (1969). The only related issue actually raised below was whether petitioner’s conduct amounted to a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to be present at trial. Since this is primarily a factual issue which does not, by itself, justify the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

State v. Hart
2024 Ohio 5622 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
Stringer v. State
196 S.W.3d 249 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Francis William Stringer v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
Rosalez v. State
190 S.W.3d 770 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Mario Rosalez v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
Battenfield v. Gibson
236 F.3d 1215 (Tenth Circuit, 2001)
State v. Sainz
924 P.2d 474 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1996)
Hough v. Leonard
867 P.2d 438 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1993)
State v. Hammond
829 P.2d 212 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1992)
Barnett v. State
512 A.2d 1071 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1986)
State v. LeMaster
669 P.2d 592 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1983)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Aragon
658 P.2d 807 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1982)
Frank Lynn Brewer v. Robert Raines
670 F.2d 117 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
Webb v. Webb
451 U.S. 493 (Supreme Court, 1981)
People v. Chambliss
106 Misc. 2d 342 (New York County Courts, 1980)
State v. Little
590 P.2d 916 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1979)
State v. LaBelle
568 P.2d 808 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1977)
People v. Hicks
90 Misc. 2d 609 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)
State v. Perez
563 P.2d 285 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
410 U.S. 351, 93 S. Ct. 998, 35 L. Ed. 2d 346, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tacon-v-arizona-scotus-1973.