error is not reversible error in Arizona

2012Thus, “ ‘if the defendant was not prejudiced by his lack of understanding of the complete provisions of the sentencing statute, the error is not reversible error.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Cuthbertson, 117 Ariz. 62, 64 , 570 P.2d 1075, 1077 (1977). ¶ 6 Citing State v. Rodriguez, 126 Ariz. 104, 105-06 , 612 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (App.1980), and State v. James, 126 Ariz. 353, 353-54 , 615 P.2d 650, 650-51 (App.1980), Villegas argues the trial court was required to set aside his plea because the court’s failure *193 to inform him of the “special sentencing provision” of § 13-2308(E) violated Rule 17.

2012Thus, “ ‘if the defendant was not prejudiced by his lack of understanding of the complete provisions of the sentencing statute, the error is not reversible error.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Cuthbertson, 117 Ariz. 62, 64 , 570 P.2d 1075, 1077 (1977). ¶ 6 Citing State v. Rodriguez, 126 Ariz. 104, 105-06 , 612 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (App.1980), and State v. James, 126 Ariz. 353, 353-54 , 615 P.2d 650, 650-51 (App.1980), Villegas argues the trial court was required to set aside his plea because the court’s failure *193 to inform him of the “special sentencing provision” of § 13-2308(E) violated Rule 17.

2012Thus, “ ‘if the defendant was not prejudiced by his lack of understanding of the complete provisions of the sentencing statute, the error is not reversible error.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Cuthbertson, 117 Ariz. 62, 64 , 570 P.2d 1075, 1077 (1977). ¶ 6 Citing State v. Rodriguez, 126 Ariz. 104, 105-06 , 612 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (App.1980), and State v. James, 126 Ariz. 353, 353-54 , 615 P.2d 650, 650-51 (App.1980), Villegas argues the trial court was required to set aside his plea because the court’s failure *193 to inform him of the “special sentencing provision” of § 13-2308(E) violated Rule 17.

1989As we stated in Cuthbertson, supra, “[hjowever, if the defendant was not prejudiced by his lack of understanding of the complete provisions of the sentencing statute, the error is not reversible error.” 570 P.2d at 1077 . 117 Ariz. at 333, 572 P.2d at 795 .

2012Thus, “ ‘if the defendant was not prejudiced by his lack of understanding of the complete provisions of the sentencing statute, the error is not reversible error.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Cuthbertson, 117 Ariz. 62, 64 , 570 P.2d 1075, 1077 (1977). ¶ 6 Citing State v. Rodriguez, 126 Ariz. 104, 105-06 , 612 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (App.1980), and State v. James, 126 Ariz. 353, 353-54 , 615 P.2d 650, 650-51 (App.1980), Villegas argues the trial court was required to set aside his plea because the court’s failure *193 to inform him of the “special sentencing provision” of § 13-2308(E) violated Rule 17.

2012Thus, “ ‘if the defendant was not prejudiced by his lack of understanding of the complete provisions of the sentencing statute, the error is not reversible error.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Cuthbertson, 117 Ariz. 62, 64 , 570 P.2d 1075, 1077 (1977). ¶ 6 Citing State v. Rodriguez, 126 Ariz. 104, 105-06 , 612 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (App.1980), and State v. James, 126 Ariz. 353, 353-54 , 615 P.2d 650, 650-51 (App.1980), Villegas argues the trial court was required to set aside his plea because the court’s failure *193 to inform him of the “special sentencing provision” of § 13-2308(E) violated Rule 17.

2012But our supreme court has since clarified that “[a] plea will be found involuntary only where a defendant lacks information of ‘true importance in the decision-making process.’ ” State v. Pac, 165 Ariz. 294, 295-96 , 798 P.2d 1303, 1304-05 (1990) (court's failure to inform defendant of ineligibility for earned release credits did not render plea involuntary where defendant informed of earliest parole eligibility date), quoting State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477, 481-82 , 747 P.2d 1176, 1180-81 (1987) (court’s failure to advise defendant of restitution amount might not warrant rescission of plea).

2012But our supreme court has since clarified that “[a] plea will be found involuntary only where a defendant lacks information of ‘true importance in the decision-making process.’ ” State v. Pac, 165 Ariz. 294, 295-96 , 798 P.2d 1303, 1304-05 (1990) (court's failure to inform defendant of ineligibility for earned release credits did not render plea involuntary where defendant informed of earliest parole eligibility date), quoting State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477, 481-82 , 747 P.2d 1176, 1180-81 (1987) (court’s failure to advise defendant of restitution amount might not warrant rescission of plea).

2012Thus, “ ‘if the defendant was not prejudiced by his lack of understanding of the complete provisions of the sentencing statute, the error is not reversible error.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Cuthbertson, 117 Ariz. 62, 64 , 570 P.2d 1075, 1077 (1977). ¶ 6 Citing State v. Rodriguez, 126 Ariz. 104, 105-06 , 612 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (App.1980), and State v. James, 126 Ariz. 353, 353-54 , 615 P.2d 650, 650-51 (App.1980), Villegas argues the trial court was required to set aside his plea because the court’s failure *193 to inform him of the “special sentencing provision” of § 13-2308(E) violated Rule 17.

2012Thus, “ ‘if the defendant was not prejudiced by his lack of understanding of the complete provisions of the sentencing statute, the error is not reversible error.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Cuthbertson, 117 Ariz. 62, 64 , 570 P.2d 1075, 1077 (1977). ¶ 6 Citing State v. Rodriguez, 126 Ariz. 104, 105-06 , 612 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (App.1980), and State v. James, 126 Ariz. 353, 353-54 , 615 P.2d 650, 650-51 (App.1980), Villegas argues the trial court was required to set aside his plea because the court’s failure *193 to inform him of the “special sentencing provision” of § 13-2308(E) violated Rule 17.

2012But our supreme court has since clarified that “[a] plea will be found involuntary only where a defendant lacks information of ‘true importance in the decision-making process.’ ” State v. Pac, 165 Ariz. 294, 295-96 , 798 P.2d 1303, 1304-05 (1990) (court's failure to inform defendant of ineligibility for earned release credits did not render plea involuntary where defendant informed of earliest parole eligibility date), quoting State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477, 481-82 , 747 P.2d 1176, 1180-81 (1987) (court’s failure to advise defendant of restitution amount might not warrant rescission of plea).

2012But our supreme court has since clarified that “[a] plea will be found involuntary only where a defendant lacks information of ‘true importance in the decision-making process.’ ” State v. Pac, 165 Ariz. 294, 295-96 , 798 P.2d 1303, 1304-05 (1990) (court's failure to inform defendant of ineligibility for earned release credits did not render plea involuntary where defendant informed of earliest parole eligibility date), quoting State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477, 481-82 , 747 P.2d 1176, 1180-81 (1987) (court’s failure to advise defendant of restitution amount might not warrant rescission of plea).