State v. Hicok

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, v. WILLIAM RANDOLPH HICOK, ) ) Appellee, ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant. ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/25/10 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: JT 1 CA-CR 08-0662 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. CR-2007-0076 The Honorable Robert R. Moon, Judge AFFIRMED ___________________________________________________________________ Terry Goddard, Attorney General Phoenix By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section and Adriana M. Rosenblum, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Dana P. Hlavac, Mohave County Public Defender Kingman By Jill L. Evans, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant ___________________________________________________________________ H A L L, Judge ¶1 Defendant, William Randolph Hicok, appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), a class two felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class six felony. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 ¶2 When carrying out a warrant for defendant s arrest, a Mohave County Deputy found drugs and other incriminating items on defendant s person and in a resulting search of a fifth-wheel trailer in the area. Specifically, the police found a scale, pipes, a ledger, several mobile phones, and $10,400 in cash wrapped in small bundles. They also found 47.74 grams of methamphetamine, contained in small baggies and labeled by quantity, with a street value of over $2,290. ¶3 Before trial, the parties filed a written stipulation to admit a Scientific Examination Report (the Report) prepared by a criminalist evidence. at the Arizona Department of Public Safety into The stipulation provided that the Report would be admitted into evidence without foundation, and that its preparer would not be called as a witness because she was on family leave. The Report identified the contents of the baggies found in the 1 [W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant. State v. Latham, 223 Ariz. 70, 72, ¶ 9, 219 P.3d 280, 282 (App. 2009) (quoting State v. Mincey, 141 Ariz. 425, 432, 687 P.2d 1180, 1187 (1984)). 2 search as methamphetamine, and reported the quantities of the drug found in the fifth-wheel trailer and on defendant s person. ¶4 The jury found defendant guilty of both offenses. The court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 15.75 years and 3.75 years, and ordered him to pay $5,410 in fines. timely appealed. Defendant This court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2001), and -4033(A) (Supp. 2008). DISCUSSION ¶5 Relying on Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (holding that a defendant must be aware of the direct consequences of a guilty plea), defendant claims the trial court fundamentally erred by allowing him to stipulate to admission of the Report without advising him of the consequences of that stipulation and obtaining a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his rights. Defendant reasons that the stipulation was tantamount to a guilty plea because the Report contained evidence of all three elements of the possession of dangerous drugs for sale charge: that he knowingly possessed a dangerous drug, that he possessed a usable amount of the drug, and that he intended to sell or transfer some or all of the drug. A recent Arizona Supreme Court decision, State 3 v. Allen, 223 Ariz. 125, 127, ¶ 11, 220 P.3d 245, 247 (2009), precludes this argument and compels us to affirm. ¶6 as Defendant s counsel stipulated to the Report s admission evidence and did not object to its admission at trial. Defendant has therefore forfeited his right to relief on appeal on this basis unless he can establish that fundamental error occurred. State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, 580 n.2, 115 P.3d 618, 620 n.2 (2005) (explaining that a defendant who fails to object at trial forfeits the claim rather than waiving it unless defendant can show fundamental error). ¶7 Fundamental error is error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005) (quotation omitted). We place the burden of persuasion on the defendant in a fundamental error review to discourage a defendant from taking his chances on a favorable verdict, reserving the hole card of a later appeal on a matter that was wholly curable at trial, and then seeking reversal on appeal. Id. (quotation omitted). Therefore, to prevail under this standard of review, a defendant must establish that error occurred, that the error was fundamental, and that the error resulted in prejudice. Id. at ¶ 20, 115 P.3d at 607. 4 ¶8 After the parties filed briefs in this case, the supreme court s decision in Allen rejected the tantamount to a guilty plea standard. 223 Ariz. at 128, ¶¶ 15-17, 220 P.3d at 248. In Allen, a defendant to a marijuana possession charge stipulated to the fact that he was in possession of a usable amount of marijuana. Id. at ¶ 6. The defendant argued that the stipulation was the practical equivalent of a guilty plea because it agreed to two of the three elements of the charged offense, and did not contest the third element. Id. at ¶ 12. The court rejected the argument, reasoning that stipulations to facts combined with not guilty pleas are simply not equivalent to a guilty plea for Boykin purposes, even if the stipulation is to all elements necessary to a conviction and even if it might appear to a reviewing court that the stipulation serves little purpose. Id. at 127-28, ¶ 14, 220 P.3d at 247-48 (quoting Adams v. Peterson, 968 F.3d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 1992)). ¶9 case. We can identify no reason to depart from Allen in this The report set forth the chemist s finding as to the nature and amount of the substances seized during the defendant s arrest and the subsequent search of the fifth-wheel trailer. Defendant s stipulation to admit the report without further foundation did not require defendant to waive his 5 constitutional rights as a precondition to its admission. Therefore, we reject defendant s claim to the contrary. CONCLUSION ¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm convictions and sentences. /s/ PHILIP HALL, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Presiding Judge /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 6 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.