State v. ShapiroState v. Shapiro
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Haire
OPINION
HAIRE, Chief Judge.Dеfendant raises two questions on this delayed appeal from the revocatiоn of his probation and the resulting imposition of sentence.
He first urges that the revocation of probation was not valid because the trial judge failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 27.8, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., in accepting his admission of violаtion of the conditions of his probation. The charged violation was that while defеndant was on probation he had been arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, a felony, and that he had subsequently pled guilty in the same proceedings tо a reduced charge, possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. The record reveals that at the time scheduled for the probation violation hearing, thе trial judge did not make the determinations specified in Rules 17.2 and 17.3, as provided in Rule 27.8. 1 Defendant, relying upon State v. Tash, 23 Ariz.App. 299, 532 P.2d 874 (1975), cоntends that this failure requires reversal. We disagree.
The alleged probation violations in Task did not involve a situation where the dеfendant had already been convicted of the charges constituting the violatiоn of the conditions of probation. We have held that where the defendant has in fact been previously convicted in the same court and the revocation of probation is being made upon the basis of that previous conviction, there is no logical need for, or requirement that, the court comply with the provisions of Rulеs 27.7(c)(2) or 27.8. State v. Garrison, 25 Ariz.App. 470, 544 P.2d 687 (1976). See also, State v. Burnett, 112 Ariz. 212, 540 P.2d 684 (1975).
The principle enunciated in these decisions has now been exprеssly stated in the 1975 revisions to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 27.7(e), now provides as follows:
“e. Disposition Upon Determination of Guilt of Subsequent Offense. If there is a determination of guilty, as defined by Rule 26.1(c) of a criminal offense by the court which placed a рrobationer on probation, no violation hearing shall be required and the court shall set the matter down for a disposition hearing at the time set for entry of judgment on the criminal offense.”
Rule 27.7(e)’s reference to “a determination of guilty ... by tke court which placed a probationer on probation” (emphasis added) does not require that the same judge be involved in both proceedings. The requirement is met when the proceedings are in different divisions of the superior court оf the same county. State v. Astorga, Ariz.App., 547 P.2d 1060 (filed March 31, 1976.)
Here the record demonstrates a complete awareness on the trial judge’s part of the defendant’s conviction of the probatiоn violation charges in other proceedings in the Maricopa County Superiоr Court. As held in Garrison, supra, under these circumstances, even though the revo *538 cation proceedings pre-dated the 1975 rule revisions, there was no need to comply with the then existing requirements of Rules 27.7(c) (2) or 27.8.
At the time defendant was plаced on probation, one of the conditions of probation was that he spend three months in the Maricopa County Jail. Upon revocation of his probаtion, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the Arizona State Prison for not lеss than five nor more than seven years, with no express credit being given for the three mоnths probationary jail time. The statute governing defendant’s sentence,
The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
EUBANK, P. J., and NELSON, J., concur.
Notes
. All references in this opinion, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1973 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as they existed prior to the 1975 revisions.