State v. Valenzuela, 506 P.2d 240 (Ariz. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Valenzuela, 506 P.2d 240 (Ariz. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“supreme court will take judicial notice of its own records and decisions and those of superior courts.”
33 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lozano v. Pacco (arizctapp, 2020-10-15) · Strongest negative: State v. Schackart (ariz, 1997-10-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
examined Cited "but see" State v. Schackart (2×)
Ariz. · 1997 · signal: but see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
supreme court will take judicial notice of its own records and decisions and those of superior courts.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lozano v. Pacco
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Vera v. Rogers, 246 Ariz. 30, 32, ¶ 6, n.1 (App. 2018) (court may take judicial notice of related superior court records); State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 (1973). 2 Shortly after the superior court issued its ruling in the second action, Appellants filed a motion requesting that this court stay any further consideration of this appeal pending entry of a final judgment in the second action.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. Reinstein (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Scottsdale Mem'l Health Sys., Inc. v. Clark, 157 Ariz. 461, 468 , 759 P.2d 607, 614 (1988); State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 , 506 P.2d 240, 241 (1973); UDALL, ET AL., ARIZONA PRACTICE, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE § 152 (3d ed.1991). [28] Judicial notice as to matters of common knowledge is a broad concept in Arizona.
cited Cited "see" State v. Felmate
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 (1973) (We may take judicial notice of records from the superior court.).
discussed Cited "see" Simmons v. Temple
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 (1973). 2 SIMMONS v. TEMPLE Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶7 We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint and compliance with the notice of claim statute.
discussed Cited "see" Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 (1973) (court may take judicial notice of related superior court records). 3 VERA v. HONS ROGERS, BENNY/CHAIDEZ Opinion of the Court Protection is properly transferred to the Superior Court, a hearing may be properly requested and will take place accordingly.” ¶7 Father then requested a hearing on the order of protection.
discussed Cited "see" Bank of Ny v. Dodev
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 (1973) (appellate court reviewed superior court records from other cases relating to the defendant); In re Sabino R., 198 Ariz. 424 (App. 2000) (holding that “[i]t is proper for a court to take judicial notice of its own records or those of another action . . . in the same court”).
cited Cited "see" State v. Leary
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Esposito
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 (1973). 3 STATE v. ESPOSITO Decision of the Court I am not asking for a mistrial at all.” Even after his advisory counsel advised him to ask for the mistrial, Esposito refused, saying, “I have my reasons, but basically I’m fine with everything.
discussed Cited "see" Hillegass v. Garmon (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 , 506 P.2d 240, 241 (1973) (recognizing that the reviewing court may take judicial notice of the records of the superior court).
discussed Cited "see" Duncan v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Ex Rel. Estate of Pop (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 , 506 P.2d 240, 241 (1973) (appellate court may take judicial notice of records of superior court).
discussed Cited "see" Duncan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 , 506 P.2d 240, 241 (1973) (appellate court may take judicial notice of records of superior court).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Bearup (2×)
Ariz. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 , 506 P.2d 240, 241 (1978) (allowing judicial notice of the. superior, court records).
examined Cited "see" State v. Thomas (4×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 , 506 P.2d 240, 241 (1973).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Boyd
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See State v. Boyd, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2000– 003971; see also State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 (1973) (taking judicial notice of superior court records).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Holt
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Evid. 201; see also State v. Valenzuela, 109 Ariz. 109, 110 (1973).
STATE of Arizona, Appellee,
v.
Jack S. VALENZUELA, Appellant
2422.
Arizona Supreme Court.
Feb 20, 1973.
506 P.2d 240
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by William P. Dixon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee., J. Douglas McVay, Phoenix, for appellant.
Hays, Cameron, Struck-Meyer, Lockwood, Holohan, JJ-.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 90%
Citer courts: Arizona Supreme Court (1)
HAYS, Chief Justice.

Defendant, Jack S. Valenzuela, was convicted of possession of heroin, with a prior conviction, to both of which charges he had pleaded not guilty. The finding of guilty of the charge of possession of heroin was the result of a jury trial, and no errors in that trial are claimed by defendant.

The finding of guilty of a prior conviction was the result of a finding by the trial judge, without a trial, and it is this finding of which defendant complains, since under our statutes the sentence without a prior cannot exceed 25 years, while with a prior, the maximum is life. (See A.R.S. §§ 36-1020 and 13-1649). The sentence actually given to defendant was 10 years to life.

It is claimed by defendant, and admitted by the State, that the only evidence of the existence of the prior is the following colloquy between defendant and the prosecuting attorney while the defendant was on the witness stand.

[Cross-examination by prosecutor]:

“Q: By the way, Mr. Valenzuela, you have been convicted of a felony before, haven’t you ? •
“A: Yes, sir, I have.
“Q: And how many felonies have you been convicted of?
“A: Two felonies, sir.
“Q: What were they ?
“A: For burglary.
“Q: Both of them?
“A: Yes, sir.
“Q: And when was that?
“A: 1967 and then 1969.
* # * ‡ ‡
[Re-direct examination by defense counsel]
“Q: Jack, you testified before that you pleaded guilty, before, to two felonies?
“A: Yes I did.
[*110] “Q: Felonies of burglary?
“A: Yes, sir.
“Q: Have you done so because you are not guilty?
“A: That is the only reason. I haven’t done anything.
“Q: Would you have pleaded guilty to this if you were guilty ?
“A: Yes, I would have.”

The charge of the prior had been added to the original information by an addendum to the information, which stated that defendant was, on June 13, 1967, convicted of burglary in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, and that records of this prior conviction had been submitted to defense counsel as required by A.R.S. §§ 13-1649 and 13-1650.

The trial court indicated that the State was prepared to prove the prior felony conviction, until defendant admitted it, after which proof became unnecessary. This is a correct statement of the law of this state. State v. Armstrong, 103 Ariz. 174, 438 P.2d 411.

Defendant, however, argues that since a prior felony conviction, at which defendant was' not represented by counsel, may not be used to enhance his punishment, the burden is on the State to show that defendant was represented by counsel at his 1967 burglary conviction, and there is no presumption of representation from a silent record. In Burgett v. Texas, 389 U. S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319, the United States Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to try a person for a felony in a state court unless he was represented by counsel or had waived that right. The Court went on to say that: “Presuming waiver of counsel from a silent record is impermissible.” 88 S.Ct. at 262, 19 L.Ed.2d at 324.

This court follows that case. In State v. Reagan, 103 Ariz. 287, 440 P.2d 907, we stated:

“[W]hen an allegation of prior conviction ... is used to enhance punishment it . . . requires that the record of that prior conviction show that defendant was represented by counsel, or waived his right to counsel . . . ” 440 P.2d at 909.

Defendant’s argument must fail, however, because this court may take judicial notice of the records of the Superior Court. Sines v. Holden, 89 Ariz. 207, 360 P.2d 218. The Superior Court file in Case No. CR 51283, which by order has been made a part of the record on appeal, shows that defendant, in the presence of counsel, withdraw a plea of not guilty and substituted a plea of guilty; that the judge made a finding that the plea was voluntary; that at his sentencing his attorney was also present and defendant was told that he had previously entered a plea of guilty to the charge and he acknowledged this to be correct; that he was then found guilty of burglary, a felony, and was sentenced to one to two years in the Arizona State Prison; and that the date of the finding of guilty and of the sentence was June 13, 1967.

Defendant also contends that there is no evidence in the record that the conviction which defendant admitted took place on June 13, 1967 — the date charged in the addendum to the information — and no evidence where the conviction occurred. Again, we take judicial notice of the records of the Superior Court and find that the place and date of the conviction agree with the place and date in the charge.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

CAMERON, V. C. J., and STRUCK-MEYER, LOCKWOOD, and HOLOHAN, JJ-, concur.