State v. WasserottState v. Wasserott
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Struckmeyer
Dеfendant, Charles William Wasserott, IV, was charged with robbery while armed with a gun, Count One, а violation of A. R.S. §§ 13-641 and 13-643[B], as amended; assault with a deadly weapon, a violation of
The record discloses that defendant’s counsel in the court below is his present counsel on appeal. Counsel has filed an Anders-type brief, in which he raises two ostensible questions, but concludes that both are without merit.
The first is whether the plеa of guilty of the defendant was voluntarily, intelligently *183 and knowingly given. As to this, the record shоws that the judge, before accepting defendant’s plea, asked what he did, and the defendant replied that he “robbed somebody” with a 12-gauge shotgun at the Congregational Church in Flagstaff, Arizona. Defendant was advised by the court that he could be sentenced to the Arizona State Prison and that the sentencе which would be imposed was strictly up to the court, not subject to any assurances which defendant might have received from anyone. He was also told thаt armed robbery carried a minimum of five years and a maximum of life, and that by pleading guilty he waived a jury trial.
The trial judge did not specifically advise the defendant that he waived his right to confrontation of the witnesses by pleading guilty. Formerly we hеld that this was not essential to a valid plea. State v. Laurino, 106 Ariz. 586, 480 P.2d 342 (1971). However, we have recently held that if on appeal the complete record is deficient, we will remand the case to the trial court for proceеdings to determine whether the defendant was aware that he was waiving all rights which were secured to him through a jury trial. State v. Darling, 109 Ariz. 148, 506 P.2d 1042 (1973).
It therefore becomes neсessary to remand this cause to the trial court for a hearing to determine if, at the time of the plea of guilty, defendant did in fact make a knowing and intelligеnt plea as required by the United States Supreme Court in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
The seсond question suggested by counsel is whether the sentence imposed by the cоurt was an abuse of its discretion. Some facts tend to indicate that a sentеnce of probation would have been warranted had the judge felt so inсlined. A private psychiatrist employed on behalf of the defendant recommended probation along with psychiatric treatment. Defendant was сommitted to the Department of Corrections for a presentencе diagnostic evaluation. Its report recommended that the. defendant bе placed on strict probation, with an acceptable theraрeutic program, or voluntarily submit himself to the Arizona State Hospital. The cоurt’s probation officer concurred in these recommendations. ■Notwithstаnding, the court did not suspend the imposition of sentence.
It conducted a hеaring which disclosed such matters as defendant’s past history, his age, education, family background, army record, his I.Q., lack of a previous criminal record, social and Boy Scout activities, and the defendant’s motivation for the commission of the offense. The trial judge also personally interviewed the defendant.
It is apparent that the court balanced the various mitigating factors against the aggravating circumstances, considering the severity of the crime, the function and purpose of the criminal law and society’s interest in having рrotection. We cannot say the sentence was an abuse of discrеtion. This court will reduce a sentence only when the trial judge has clearly аbused his discretion. State v. Fischer, 108 Ariz. 325, 498 P.2d 147 (1972).
This cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to make appropriate findings of fact and to advise this Court of its findings.
HAYS, C. J., CAMERON, V. C. J., and LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.