# State v. Darelli

> Court of Appeals of Arizona · July 31, 2003 · 205 Ariz. 458

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787370

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Carlo Victor DARELLI, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arizona
- **Decided:** July 31, 2003
- **Citations:** 205 Ariz. 458; 72 P.3d 1277
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Garbarino
- **Judges:** Barker, Garbarino, Timmer
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787370

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding plea cutoff dates are impermissible without rule promulgated by Arizona Supreme Court

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9787370. Public record. Not legal advice.