Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Laurino
Citations: 480 P.2d 342; 106 Ariz. 586; 1971 Ariz. LEXIS 211Docket: 2096
Court: Arizona Supreme Court; February 8, 1971; Arizona; State Supreme Court
Daniel Laurino was found guilty of giving away marijuana after changing his plea from not guilty to guilty on September 16, 1969. He was initially charged with four counts related to drug offenses, including unlawful possession of marijuana and LSD. During the plea process, the court confirmed that Laurino understood the charge against him, the potential penalties, and that no promises had been made regarding his sentence. Laurino's attorney affirmed that the plea was entered freely and voluntarily. Following the acceptance of the plea, the prosecution dismissed the remaining counts. Laurino was sentenced to a term of five to seven years in the Arizona State Penitentiary. The court informed him of his right to appeal the sentence and the provision of legal representation and transcripts at county expense if he could not afford them. The defendant expressed a desire to appeal, and counsel was appointed. The attorney filed a brief stating, based on Anders v. California and State v. Leon, that the appeal appeared frivolous but identified potential grounds for appeal: 1) the appellant did not explicitly waive his right to a jury trial, 2) he did not specifically waive his right to confront his accusers, and 3) the plea-taking procedure may not meet Arizona standards for guilty pleas. The document addresses whether a specific waiver of these rights is necessary, referencing Douglas v. Alabama and Boykin v. Alabama, which clarify that a waiver cannot be presumed from a silent record. The text explains that a guilty plea waives certain constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial and the right to confront accusers, but does not require an explicit waiver of each right prior to accepting a plea. The court reviewed the transcript of the plea and determined that the defendant, a college junior, entered the plea voluntarily and intelligently. The court concluded that the requirements for a valid plea were met, as an intelligent waiver was evident, and the Boykin mandates were complied with. A thorough review of the record revealed no fundamental error, leading to the affirmation of the judgment.