State v. Crocker
The holding in the court’s own words
We conclude that by entering into the plea agreement, appellant has waived any challenge as to the constitutionality of the statute.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we work.
Cited by
- State v. Wilson 851 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. 1993
- State v. Emerson 832 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. 1992
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Fritz 755 P.2d 444
- State v. Canaday 569 P.2d 238
Opinion text
OPINION HOWARD, Judge. Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to promoting prison contraband, a class 5 felony, by possessing $111.75 in cash while confined in the Safford facility of the Arizona State Prison. On appeal, appellant claims the prison contraband statutes, A.R.S. §§ 13-2501(1) and 13-2505(A), are unconstitutionally vague because it is not clear that money is proscribed by the *517 statute. However, appellant pled guilty to the charge and his guilty plea waived all nonjurisdictional defenses. State v. Cana-dy, 116 Ariz. 296 , 569 P.2d 238 (1977); State v. Fritz, 157 Ariz. 139 , 755 P.2d 444 (App.1988). It has been held that a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is a nonjurisdictional defense. United States v. Burke, 694 F.2d 632 (9th Cir.1982); Shaffer v. United States, 435 F.2d 168 (9th Cir.1970). We conclude that by entering into the plea agreement, appellant has waived any challenge as to the constitutionality of the statute. We have reviewed the entire record before us and have found that appellant made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea to the charge, for which a sufficient factual basis was established. Our review of the entire record for fundamental, reversible error has revealed none. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed are affirmed. ROLL, P.J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.