 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Morris10/7/2003
ior conviction is with a certified copy of the judgment of conviction. Morris's reliance on Hauss is misplaced. In Hauss, the prior convictions were proved by a probation officer's testimony. The supreme court affirmed the sentencing enhancement but disapproved the method used to prove the prior convictions. It held that trial courts may not consider nondocumentary evidence to prove a prior conviction absent a showing that the state's efforts to obtain the documentary evidence had been unsuccessful for reasons beyond its control.
Here, the state presented documentary evidence to prove the prior conviction, the court record. Furthermore, at the sentencing hearing, during a discussion between the court, defense counsel, and Morris about CR-62636, the court asked if Morris was still serving time for that conviction. Counsel told the court Morris was close to completing his sentence, and when questioned by the court, Morris said he had one more month of time to serve. Morris's admission, although belated, also constituted valid proof of the prior conviction. See Hauss.
Finally, Morris contends the trial court erred in suggesting he must serve one hundred percent of his sentences before he can be released, asking us to correct the statements. The state agrees and requests that the statements be stricken from the transcript. Both correctly agree that the current version of A.R.S. § 13-604.02(B), which was in effect at the time Morris committed these offenses, permits potential early release. The sentencing transcript shows the court did not order Morris to serve one hundred percent of his sentences. The sentencing minute entry does not refer to his serving one hundred percent of the sentences. Although this court has the power to correct an illegal sentence, see generally State v. Vargas-Burgos, 162 Ariz. 325, 783 P.2d 264 (App. 1989), where neither the sentencing transcript nor minute entry suggests such an illegality, we will not strike statements in transcripts.
Affirmed.
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
M. JAN FLUREZ, Judge
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Judge
|