interpreting individual judge's decision to reject last-minute plea negotiation as intrusion on supreme court's rule-making authority
How later courts described this case
- interpreting individual judge's decision to reject last-minute plea negotiation as intrusion on supreme court's rule-making authority
- holding plea cutoff dates are impermissible without rule promulgated by Arizona Supreme Court
- “There is no need to delay a trial to complete plea negotiations. When faced with a last minute request for plea negotiations, a trial judge can (and most often should) proceed forward with the merits of the case by mandating that the trial proceed as scheduled.”
- vacating conviction entered after trial and ordering parties to return to specific stage of plea negotiations
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GARBARINO, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
¶ 28 I respectfully dissent. In contrast to Donald, there was never a plea agreement on the table in this case. At most, there was the suggestion by the prosecuting attorney that she would seek the approval of her supervisor to offer a plea agreement. It was at that point that the trial court advised the parties that it would only accept a plea of guilty or a dismissal of the charges. Had the defendant believed the court to be in error by not reviewing whatever plea the parties may have submitted, he should have petitioned for special action relief. Although I agree with the majority that the trial court erred, I do not believe that we should now set aside a valid conviction so that the parties can, if they are willing to do so, enter into plea negotiations. I would affirm the conviction.