State v. Stewart
Cited by
- Garner v. Daurio Ariz. Ct. App. 2019
- Sherrill v. Arizona Department of Transportation 793 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. 1990
- State Ex Rel. Baumert v. MUNICIPAL COURT, ETC. 585 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. 1978
- State v. Murphy 555 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1976
- State v. Turnbaugh 457 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. 1969
- State v. Spellman 454 P.2d 980 Ariz. 1969
- San Miguel v. McCarthy 446 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. 1968
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State Ex Rel. Ronan v. Stevens 381 P.2d 100
Opinion text
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.