Alford plea in Arizona

2017In deciding whether to enter an Alford plea, a defendant must “assess the weight of the evidence and measure the probability of a guilty verdict and a longer sentence against a definite and lesser sentence to be imposed in accordance with the plea agreement.” Id. at 208 , 782 P.2d at 326 . 2 STATE v. THOMPSON Decision of the Court probation officer petitioned to revoke his probation, alleging Thompson had violated his probation by accessing “the internet via Facebook on at least seven (7) occasions soliciting friends, including a 13 year [old] female.” The superior court held a contested viola

2017In deciding whether to enter an Alford plea, a defendant must “assess the weight of the evidence and measure the probability of a guilty verdict and a longer sentence against a definite and lesser sentence to be imposed in accordance with the plea agreement.” Id. at 208 , 782 P.2d at 326 . 2 STATE v. THOMPSON Decision of the Court probation officer petitioned to revoke his probation, alleging Thompson had violated his probation by accessing “the internet via Facebook on at least seven (7) occasions soliciting friends, including a 13 year [old] female.” The superior court held a contested viola

1994Because an Alford plea is merely a risk/benefit calculation, not an admission of guilt, “[w]here there is ... an objective basis for defendant’s reevaluation[,] withdrawal should be permitted.” Id. at 208 , 782 P.2d at 326 (victim recantation); accord *94 Dockery, 169 Ariz. at 529 , 821 P.2d at 190 (terminal illness; no benefit in sentence-shortening bargain); Fritz, 157 Ariz. at 141 , 755 P.2d at 446 (victim recantation).

1994Because an Alford plea is merely a risk/benefit calculation, not an admission of guilt, “[w]here there is ... an objective basis for defendant’s reevaluation[,] withdrawal should be permitted.” Id. at 208 , 782 P.2d at 326 (victim recantation); accord *94 Dockery, 169 Ariz. at 529 , 821 P.2d at 190 (terminal illness; no benefit in sentence-shortening bargain); Fritz, 157 Ariz. at 141 , 755 P.2d at 446 (victim recantation).

1989State v. King, 116 Ariz. 353, 355 , 569 P.2d 295, 297 (App.1977) (factual basis for Alford plea was established by prosecutor’s recitation of the state’s case rather than by defendant); State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91, 93 , 688 P.2d 983, 985 (1984) (factual basis for Alford plea can be established by “the record as a whole or any part of it, including a preliminary hearing”).

1989State v. King, 116 Ariz. 353, 355 , 569 P.2d 295, 297 (App.1977) (factual basis for Alford plea was established by prosecutor’s recitation of the state’s case rather than by defendant); State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91, 93 , 688 P.2d 983, 985 (1984) (factual basis for Alford plea can be established by “the record as a whole or any part of it, including a preliminary hearing”).

1994Because an Alford plea is merely a risk/benefit calculation, not an admission of guilt, “[w]here there is ... an objective basis for defendant’s reevaluation[,] withdrawal should be permitted.” Id. at 208 , 782 P.2d at 326 (victim recantation); accord *94 Dockery, 169 Ariz. at 529 , 821 P.2d at 190 (terminal illness; no benefit in sentence-shortening bargain); Fritz, 157 Ariz. at 141 , 755 P.2d at 446 (victim recantation).

1994Because an Alford plea is merely a risk/benefit calculation, not an admission of guilt, “[w]here there is ... an objective basis for defendant’s reevaluation[,] withdrawal should be permitted.” Id. at 208 , 782 P.2d at 326 (victim recantation); accord *94 Dockery, 169 Ariz. at 529 , 821 P.2d at 190 (terminal illness; no benefit in sentence-shortening bargain); Fritz, 157 Ariz. at 141 , 755 P.2d at 446 (victim recantation).

1986Both Vickie Hurst-Solano and Guy Lindstrom agreed to enter an Alford plea, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to the lesser charge of possession of cocaine, a class 4 felony (presumptive sentence 4 years, minimum sentence 2 years, maximum sentence 5 years, probation available).

1986Both Vickie Hurst-Solano and Guy Lindstrom agreed to enter an Alford plea, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to the lesser charge of possession of cocaine, a class 4 felony (presumptive sentence 4 years, minimum sentence 2 years, maximum sentence 5 years, probation available).

1994Our supreme court has recognized that, for purposes of acceptance of the plea, “there is no significant difference between a plea of guilty with a protestation of innocence [i.e., an Alford plea] and a plea of no contest.” State v. Stewart, 131 Ariz. 251, 254 , 640 P.2d 182, 185 (1982) (finding no prejudice resulting from trial court’s designating and accepting as a no contest plea one that was intended as an Alford plea); accord State v. Anderson, 147 Ariz. 346, 350 , 710 P.2d 456, 460 (1985).

1994Our supreme court has recognized that, for purposes of acceptance of the plea, “there is no significant difference between a plea of guilty with a protestation of innocence [i.e., an Alford plea] and a plea of no contest.” State v. Stewart, 131 Ariz. 251, 254 , 640 P.2d 182, 185 (1982) (finding no prejudice resulting from trial court’s designating and accepting as a no contest plea one that was intended as an Alford plea); accord State v. Anderson, 147 Ariz. 346, 350 , 710 P.2d 456, 460 (1985).

1994Our supreme court has recognized that, for purposes of acceptance of the plea, “there is no significant difference between a plea of guilty with a protestation of innocence [i.e., an Alford plea] and a plea of no contest.” State v. Stewart, 131 Ariz. 251, 254 , 640 P.2d 182, 185 (1982) (finding no prejudice resulting from trial court’s designating and accepting as a no contest plea one that was intended as an Alford plea); accord State v. Anderson, 147 Ariz. 346, 350 , 710 P.2d 456, 460 (1985).

1994Our supreme court has recognized that, for purposes of acceptance of the plea, “there is no significant difference between a plea of guilty with a protestation of innocence [i.e., an Alford plea] and a plea of no contest.” State v. Stewart, 131 Ariz. 251, 254 , 640 P.2d 182, 185 (1982) (finding no prejudice resulting from trial court’s designating and accepting as a no contest plea one that was intended as an Alford plea); accord State v. Anderson, 147 Ariz. 346, 350 , 710 P.2d 456, 460 (1985).

1994The United States Supreme Court earlier found, in upholding the constitutionality of the Alford plea, that there is no “material difference between a plea that refuses to admit commission of the criminal act and a plea containing a protestation of innocence.” Alford, 400 U.S. at 37, 91 S.Ct. at 167.

1994The United States Supreme Court earlier found, in upholding the constitutionality of the Alford plea, that there is no “material difference between a plea that refuses to admit commission of the criminal act and a plea containing a protestation of innocence.” Alford, 400 U.S. at 37, 91 S.Ct. at 167.

1989See, e.g., Ross v. State, 456 N.E.2d 420, 423 (Ind.1983) (the acceptance of an Alford plea constitutes reversible error); People v. Butler, 43 Mich.App. 270 , 279-81 & n. 2, 204 N.W.2d 325 , 329-30 & n. 2 (1972) (the trial court may not accept a plea of guilty unless the defendant personally gives facts sufficient to constitute guilt); State v. Korzenowski, 123 N.J.Super. 454 , 456 n. 1, 303 A.2d 596 , 597 n. 1 (App.Div.) (citing a supreme court directive prohibiting the use of *208 Alford pleas), cert. denied, 63 N.J. 327 , 307 A.2d 100 (1973).

1989State v. King, 116 Ariz. 353, 355 , 569 P.2d 295, 297 (App.1977) (factual basis for Alford plea was established by prosecutor’s recitation of the state’s case rather than by defendant); State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91, 93 , 688 P.2d 983, 985 (1984) (factual basis for Alford plea can be established by “the record as a whole or any part of it, including a preliminary hearing”).

1989State v. King, 116 Ariz. 353, 355 , 569 P.2d 295, 297 (App.1977) (factual basis for Alford plea was established by prosecutor’s recitation of the state’s case rather than by defendant); State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91, 93 , 688 P.2d 983, 985 (1984) (factual basis for Alford plea can be established by “the record as a whole or any part of it, including a preliminary hearing”).

1989State v. Snodgrass, 117 Ariz. 107, 110-11 , 570 P.2d 1280, 1283-84 (App.1977).

1989State v. Snodgrass, 117 Ariz. 107, 110-11 , 570 P.2d 1280, 1283-84 (App.1977).

1989Automatically allowing Alford pleas to be withdrawn would render such pleas “mere gesture[s]” or “meaningless formal-it[ies] reversible at the defendant’s whim.” United States v. Barker, 514 F.2d 208, 221 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied 421 U.S. 1013 , 95 S.Ct. 2420 , 44 L.Ed.2d 682 (1975).

1977See 25 Ariz.App. at 413 , 544 P.2d at 237 . *356 This is not required in the case of an Alford plea where the basis for the plea rests not upon an actual admission of guilt but upon an acknowledgment that in view of the evidence a trial may result in a determination of guilt with respect to the subject offense or perhaps a higher offense and possibly other offenses as well.

1977See 25 Ariz.App. at 413 , 544 P.2d at 237 . *356 This is not required in the case of an Alford plea where the basis for the plea rests not upon an actual admission of guilt but upon an acknowledgment that in view of the evidence a trial may result in a determination of guilt with respect to the subject offense or perhaps a higher offense and possibly other offenses as well.