493 P.2d 934 | Ariz. Ct. App. | 1972
The defendant has appealed from a judgment and sentence of four to five years imposed upon his plea of guilty to burglary, second degree.
The defendant’s first contention is that the trial court failed to advise the defendant of the elements of the charge against him and thus his plea was rendered invalid.
In State v. Brown, 15 Ariz.App. 48, 485 P.2d 872 (1971), we held that:
“ . . . [E]ven Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require that each and every element of the crime be explained to a pleading defendant. . . . [I]t is sufficient that the court, not the defendant, satisfy itself of the factual basis for the plea, this factual basis of necessity showing the elements of the crime. ...” 485 P.2d at 473
Also see, State v. Liden, 16 Ariz.App. 238, 492 P.2d 734 (filed Jan. 19, 1972); State v. Fulper, 16 Ariz.App. 357, 493 P.2d 524 (filed Feb. 7, 1972); State v. Moreno, 16 Ariz.App. 191, 492 P.2d 440 (filed Jan. 10, 1972).
The second contention made by the defendant is that the defendant failed to waive, on the record, his constitutional rights of trial by jury, right of confrontation, and privilege against self-incrimination. This contention was answered in the recent Supreme Court decision of State v. Zaye, 108 Ariz. 13, 492 P.2d 392 (filed Jan. 5, 1972), which held:
“The absence of the express waiver of the specific constitutional rights did not invalidate the plea.”
Judgment affirmed.