 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. City Court of City of Tucson2/28/1989
ion with a prior conviction which was entered after an uncounseled guilty plea. State v. Natoli, 158 Ariz. 525, 764 P.2d 10 (1988). In that case, the court concluded as follows:
In summary, we hold that when a record of conviction shows that a defendant was advised of his right to counsel, and voluntarily waived counsel, and the record is otherwise regular on its face, a defendant is precluded from collaterally attacking the validity of that conviction when it is used for enhancement of sentence.
158 Ariz. at 527, 764 P.2d at 12. Although the issue raised in that case was whether the defendant could collaterally attack his prior conviction based on the lack of a record to support the finding of a factual basis for the guilty plea, the supreme court resolved the case on the basis of a general rule regarding collateral attacks on convictions. "If the record of conviction fails to show that a defendant was either represented by counsel or had knowingly waived counsel, the conviction may be collaterally attacked, and under such a record the conviction cannot be used to enhance the sentence on a subsequent conviction." Id. (emphasis added).
In this case, appellants have offered no evidence attacking the validity of their prior convictions other than their claim that the records fail to show a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel. The forms
which appellants signed contain the following certification:
I CERTIFY THAT THE JUDGE PERSONALLY ADVISED ME OF THE MATTERS NOTED ABOVE: THAT I FULLY UNDERSTAND, AGREE WITH AND APPROVE THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE JUDGE: THAT I UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHICH I GIVE UP BY ENTERING THIS PLEA, AND THAT I STILL DESIRE TO PLEAD GUILTY, NO CONTEST, TO THE CHARGES SET FORTH IN FINDING NUMBER 1 IN THE AFOREMENTIONED.
The trial court's judgment as to whether a defendant understands the constitutional rights he waives by entering a plea agreement is presumed to be based on sufficient foundation. State v. Churton, 9 Ariz. App. 16, 448 P.2d 888 (1968). Appellants have made no argument that they were mentally incompetent or emotionally disturbed when they entered their pleas. This court has held that, absent evidence otherwise, we presume the regularity of court proceedings and, when a record indicates that a defendant waived counsel, that the waiver was proper. State v. Hoover, 151 Ariz. 470, 728 P.2d 689 (App.1986).
We find that the records in these cases are sufficient to show that appellants were advised of their right to counsel and voluntarily and intelligently waived that right. State v. Natoli, supra.
AFFIRMED.
|