Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Ariz. App. 445

State v. Vasquez

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided April 2, 1974

Court of Appeals of Arizona · decided 1974-04-02

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1975

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““THE COURT: In Cause Number 76789, you have been charged by the State of Arizona with the crime of Forgery, a felony. To this charge you have entered a plea of Guilty. Do you have anything to say or any legal cause to show why sentence should not now be pronounced ? “MR. GAY [for the defendant] No legal cause, Your Honor. “THE COURT: No legal cause appearing, and by reason of your plea of Guilty, it is the judgment of this court that you are guilty of the crime of Forgery, a felony. “Cause Number 71350, the Court finds because of your conviction in Cause 76789, you have violated the terms of your probation. “IT IS ORDERED revoking your probation in Cause 71350. “In Cause Number 76789, as punishment for this crime, IT IS ORDERED that you be taken from the bar of this court to the common jail of Maricopa County, there to remain for a period not to exceed fifteen days, during which time the Sheriff of Maricopa County will transfer you to the Arizona State Prison, there to be incarcerated for a term of not less than nine, nor more than twelve years. “Cause 71350, IT IS ORDERED that you be taken from the bar of this court to the common jail of Maricopa County, there to remain for a period not to exceed fifteen days, during which time the Sheriff of Maricopa County will transfer you to the Arizona State Prison, there to be incarcerated for a term of not less than two, nor more than five years on each count — these sentences to run concurrently with Cause 76789. All sentences are to”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Vasquez

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-04-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

STEVENS, Judge.

¶2After a plea of guilty to the charged offense of forgery, a judgment of guilt and *446a sentence, Edward Martinez Vasquez, herein referred to as the defendant, perfected an appeal to this Court under his privileges as an indigent.

¶3The opening brief was filed urging that the only arguable question was the absence of an express finding of a factual basis for the plea. No error is urged in the taking of the plea and based on the record and the signed pretrial statement we find no error in the taking of the plea.

¶4At the time of the filing of the opening brief, counsel for the defendant filed a motion for leave to withdraw. By a written order this Court took the motion under advisement. The order directed that the record be sent to the defendant and specified a specific date on or before which the defendant could supplement the opening brief. This he has not done. The files in the instant case reflect that the record was forwarded to the defendant as the Court directed.

¶5The record in the instant case makes reference to 1 CA-CR 635 which is an appeal arising out of Maricopa County Criminal Cause No. 71350.

¶6In the instant case and in the minutes of the hearing of 14 September 1974 Judge Martin stated:

“by reason of your plea of guilty and the report of the Probation Department it is now the Judgment of this Court that you are guilty of the crime of Forgery, a Felony.”

¶7Neither the report of the Probation Department nor the reporter’s transcript of the 14 September hearing is on file in the instant case. The Deputy Public Defender representing the defendant in the instant case is not the same Deputy Public Defender who represents the defendant in 1 CA-CR 635. Hence he probably is not fully aware of the content of the record in 1 CA-CR 635.

¶8This Court has taken judicial notice of the content of the records on file in this Court in 1 CA-CR 635 and therein is the reporter’s transcript of the 14 September proceedings in both cases, as well as the probation officer’s report which relates to both cases. In relation to the instant case the defendant made admissions to the probation officer which furnished a factual basis for the plea of guilty and for the judgment of guilt.

¶9How much better it would be had the trial judge enlarged the record by reciting that he found a factual basis for the plea.

¶10We have examined the record for fundamental error and found none. This appeal is wholly frivolous.

DONOFRIO, P. J., and OGG, J., concur.
/21/arizapp/445 · .json · Public domain