State v. Stewart

STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. James LeRoy STEWART, Appellant

State v. Stewart, 445 P.2d 433 (Ariz. 1968)

Court: Arizona Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: September 25, 1968
Docket: No. 1821
Judges: Udall, McFarland, Struckmeyer, Bernstein, Lockwood
Citations: 445 P.2d 433103 Ariz. 4571968 Ariz. LEXIS 293

Cited by 7 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Udall

UDALL, Vice Chief Justice:

Appellant, hereinafter called “defendant”, plead guilty to a charge of robbery and was sentenced to serve fifteen to thirty years in the State Penitentiary. He appeals his conviction claiming that he was coerced into pleading guilty by the county attorney.

Defendant was charged in the information with robbery and assault with intent to murder. The information was amended and the assault charge dropped. Defendant then plead guilty to the robbery charge. Defendant now contends that he entered the guilty plea because the county attorney promised to reciprocate by having the assault charge dismissed. Defendant also contends that the assault charge was spurious and was included in the information merely to scare him into pleading guilty to robbery.

*458 We do not agree that the assault charge was spurious. Probable cause was found for assault with intent to commit murder by an independent magistrate.

The prosecutor may use discretion in deciding which offenses he will prosecute. State ex rel. Ronan v. Stevens, 93 Ariz. 375 , 381 P.2d 100 (1963).

He must weigh the evidence, the law and the facts, and the chances of successful termination of the prosecution. In his discretion he may have the court dismiss prosecution of one offense upon the entry of a guilty plea to another.

In no case could we approve the filing of spurious charges against a defendant in order to coerce or “scare” him ■into pleading guilty to one of the charges. 'The record does not indicate that such is ■the case here.

Affirmed.

McFARLAND, C. J., and STRUCKMEYER, BERNSTEIN and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(recognizing that a “prosecutor may use discretion in deciding which offenses” to prosecute and that this involves “weigh[ing] the evidence, the law and the facts, and the chances of successful termination of the prosecution”)

Garner v. Daurio, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0224-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019)

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Murphy555 P.2d 1110 (Ariz. 1976)
State v. Spellman454 P.2d 980 (Ariz. 1969)
State v. Turnbaugh457 P.2d 719 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969)
State ex rel. Baumert v. MUNICIPAL COURT, ETC.585 P.2d 1253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978)
Sherrill v. Arizona Department of Transportation793 P.2d 1109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) · Dissent
San Miguel v. McCarthy446 P.2d 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)

Most recent

Garner v. DaurioNo. 1 CA-CV 18-0224-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019)
Sherrill v. Arizona Department of Transportation793 P.2d 1109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) · Dissent
State ex rel. Baumert v. MUNICIPAL COURT, ETC.585 P.2d 1253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978)
State v. Murphy555 P.2d 1110 (Ariz. 1976)
State v. Turnbaugh457 P.2d 719 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969)
State v. Spellman454 P.2d 980 (Ariz. 1969)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State ex rel. Ronan v. Stevens, 381 P.2d 100 (Ariz. 1963)	16

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list