State v. Young
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) JEFFREY CARL YOUNG, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 04/26/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CR 10-1000 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-007843-003 DT The Honorable Sally Schneider Duncan, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Aaron J. Moskowitz, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Maricopa County Public Defender By Margaret M. Green, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 sentences Jeffrey imposed Carl after Young he (defendant) was convicted appeals of from possession the of burglary tools and burglary. Defendant contends the sentencing court committed fundamental error when it failed to comply with the requirements of Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (Rule 17) in accepting his admissions to two prior historical felony convictions. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm defendant s sentences. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 A grand jury indicted defendant on two counts of possession of burglary tools, both class six felonies; and two counts of felonies. 1 burglary The in state the third amended the degree, both indictment to class allege four two historical prior felony convictions, and further alleged that defendant committed the present offenses while on release from confinement pursuant section 13-708(C). to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Following a four day trial, the jury found defendant guilty of all four counts. 2 Four days later, defendant appeared before the same trial judge and pled guilty in two other matters: CR2010-101366-001 and CR2010-005842-001. In connection with the plea agreement in CR2010-101366, defendant 1 Because defendant challenges only his sentences, we confine our discussion to the facts and proceedings relevant to that issue. 2 The jury also found the following aggravators: that defendant committed all four felonies in consideration for the receipt of anything of pecuniary value, and that the two thirddegree burglaries involved the presence of an accomplice. 2 admitted two historical prior felony convictions: (1) possession of burglary tools, a class 6 felony; marijuana, a class 6 felony. and (2) possession of The plea agreement included a stipulation that the trial court would sentence defendant to eleven years of incarceration in this case, CR2009-007843, and that the sentence would run concurrently to the sentence in CR2010-101366. ¶3 The trial court engaged defendant in a lengthy colloquy in which defendant confirmed that he understood that his admission to the two prior felony convictions would allow the trial court to sentence him in CR2009-007843 as a repetitive offender and place him in the highest sentencing range possible under the law. The court set forth the penalties on the record and confirmed that defendant was entering into the guilty pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. to defendant pleading that guilty; he was that he giving up had right a The court explained constitutional to remain rights by silent, a privilege against self-incrimination, and a right to refuse to testify at trial. Defendant verified that he understood he is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and the state has to prove his guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. court s explanation of defendant s following interchange took place: 3 constitutional During the rights, the THE COURT: Do you understand that if you are convicted at trial, if at the time of sentencing the State were seeking to increase your sentence above the presumptive sentence, the State would have to give you notice of alleged aggravating circumstances and there would be a second phase to the trial where the State would have to prove those alleged aggravating circumstances to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury would have to make that finding unanimously, meaning all of the jurors would have to agree before the court could increase your sentence above the presumptive sentence, and that s true for all alleged aggravating circumstances except for prior felony convictions. Those have to be proven to the court and not a jury. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Finally, present the court evidence, Yes, Your Honor. explained including that defendant calling witnesses had a and right to testifying himself, and that he had the right to be represented by counsel throughout all phases of a criminal proceeding. Defendant confirmed that he understood all of these rights and that he wanted to give them up in order to enter the guilty pleas. ¶4 On November 22, 2010, the trial court sentencing hearing to resolve defendant s three cases. held one Both the state and defense counsel asked the trial court to follow the plea agreement. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court imposed an aggravated eleven-year prison term in CR2010-101366; and in CR2010-005842, the court suspended sentencing and ordered defendant to serve three years of probation. 4 In this case, CR2009-007843, the court sentenced defendant to the stipulated aggravated term of 11 years imprisonment for each of the third degree burglary convictions with two historical prior felony convictions, and the presumptive 3.75 years imprisonment for each of the possession of burglary tools convictions with two historical prior felony convictions. 3 All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ¶5 Defendant timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. § 12-120.21 (2010). DISCUSSION ¶6 Defendant asserts that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct a waiver of his trial rights pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 before finding the existence of the priors and sentencing him as a repetitive offender. Because defendant failed to object, our review is for fundamental error. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005). Defendant must first prove that an error occurred, and second that the error was fundamental and caused him prejudice. Id. at ¶ 20. An error is considered fundamental when it is error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes 3 from the defendant a right In accordance with the plea agreement, the state moved to dismiss the allegation of the other priors and that defendant was on parole. 5 essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial. Id. at ¶ 19 (citation omitted). ¶7 Under Rule 17.6, [w]henever a prior conviction is charged, an admission thereto by the defendant shall be accepted only under the procedures of this rule, unless admitted by the defendant while testifying establishes a defendant s admission colloquy, colloquy there is the stand. a prior assurance Thus, Rule when requirement of no on court accepts a Without a the conviction. that the admission was 17.6 made voluntarily and intelligently in preservation of the defendant s due process rights. State v. Morales, 215 Ariz. 59, 61, ¶ 8, 157 P.3d 479, 481 (2007); see also Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43 (1969). Before a trial court may accept a defendant s admission to a prior conviction, it must advise the defendant of the nature of the allegation, the effect of admitting the allegation on the defendant s sentence, and the defendant s right to proceed to trial and require the State to prove the allegation. State v. Anderson, 199 Ariz. 187, 194, ¶ 36, 16 P.3d 214, 221 (App. 2000); see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.2, 17.3, 17.6. ¶8 Defendant concedes that the trial court advised him of the effect his admission would have on the present case, but argues that at no time was he advised of the constitutional 6 rights he gave up in regard to his priors. Specifically, defendant contends that he was not advised that he had a right to a trial on the prior felony convictions and was not asked whether he wanted to give up the right to trial on the priors, his right to counsel and his right to plead not guilty. However, on the record before us we do not find error, let alone fundamental error. ¶9 Defendant entered into the plea agreements in order to avoid the possibility of receiving sentences amounting to sixtyfive years in prison. The trial court took defendant through an extensive colloquy in order to ensure defendant was aware of his rights and the consequences of entering into such agreements. Defendant first argues that he was never advised that he had a right to a trial on the prior felony convictions. record shows that the court explained However, the that prior felony convictions had to be proven to the court beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant stated that he understood this. The court also explained to defendant that he had the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination. The court explained to defendant that he had a right to be represented by counsel throughout all phases of a criminal proceeding. Defendant again affirmed that he understood his rights. After explaining all of defendant s constitutional rights, the court asked if he wanted to give up 7 those rights and defendant answered in the affirmative. Consequently, we cannot find error because the record establishes that defendant was advised of each of the rights of which he complains. ¶10 Moreover, prejudice to even if defendant. there were error, This kind of there error was does automatically invoke resentencing of the defendant. no not State v. Carter, 216 Ariz. 286, 290, ¶ 18, 165 P.3d 687, 691 (App. 2007). Defendant bears the burden of persuasion in showing that the error caused him prejudice, that he would not have admitted the fact of the prior conviction had the colloquy been given. Morales, 215 Ariz. at 61-62, ¶¶ 10-11, 157 P.3d at 481-82; see Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 20, 115 P.3d at 607. Defendant does not not admitted even the allege fact colloquy been given. of in the his brief prior that he convictions would had a have different When the defendant s prior convictions are not in the record on appeal, 4 remanding to the trial court is the appropriate remedy because evidence of the necessary prejudice, i.e., that the defendant would not have stipulated to the prior conviction had the proper colloquy taken place, by nature is not usually to be found in the record on appeal. at 291, ¶ 23, 165 P.3d at 692. Carter, 216 Ariz. We conclude, however, that the defendant must, at the very least, make the claim that he would 4 Here, Defendant s priors are listed in the presentence report filed under CR2010-005842-001. 8 not have admitted the prior felony convictions had a different colloquy taken specific sentence exactly. place. In and was this case, given the defendant benefit negotiated of his a bargain Furthermore, defendant does not suggest that he was not convicted of the felonies at issue or that the state would have been unable to produce the needed documentary evidence if he had timely objected. State v. Miller, 215 Ariz. 40, 44, ¶ 13, 156 P.3d 1145, 1149 (App. 2007); see State v. Richards, 166 Ariz. 576, remand, 579 court hearing). n.1, can 804 P.2d consider 109, new 112 n.1 evidence (App. in 1990) (on resentencing Thus, defendant has not shown any prejudice from the presumed error. CONCLUSION ¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm sentences. /s/ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge 9 defendant s
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
