State v. Young, 230 Ariz. 265

Defendant Young was convicted of possession of burglary tools and burglary (two class-6 felonies and two class-4 felonies, respectively).
Indictment alleged two historical prior felony convictions and that offenses occurred while on release.
At a later proceeding, Young pled guilty in CR2010-101366-001 and CR2010-005842-001, admitting two historical priors (possession of burglary tools, marijuana).
Plea agreement provided for a repetitive-offender sentence in CR2009-007843 and concurrent sentencing with the other case.
The court conducted a lengthy colloquy, advising rights and the effect of admitting priors; Young affirmatively waived rights.
Sentences: in CR2010-101366, aggravated 11-year term; in CR2009-007843, 11 years per third-degree burglary with two priors; possession tools sentences presumptive 3.75 years with two priors; all concurrent; CR2010-005842 probation; appeal challenging Rule 17 colloquy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Rule 17 colloquy satisfied waiver of priors.	Young argues the court failed to advise on trial rights for priors.	Sworn waiver shows rights were described and knowingly waived.	No error; waiver valid and voluntary.
Whether any Rule 17 deficiency prejudiced Young.	Without proper colloquy, remand for resentencing might be required.	Even if error, no prejudice shown.	No prejudice; no remand required.

State v. Morales, 215 Ariz. 59 (2007) (colloquy required for prior convictions; admissibility of priors must be voluntary and intelligent)
State v. Anderson, 199 Ariz. 187 (App.2000) (prior must be proven to court; rights explained before waivers under Rule 17)
State v. Carter, 216 Ariz. 286 (App.2007) (inadequate colloquy may not automatically require resentencing; prejudice required)
Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (fundamental-error standard; prejudice required to overturn)