From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Buckmaster

Supreme Court of Arizona
Jul 11, 1963
383 P.2d 869 (Ariz. 1963)

Opinion

No. 1315.

July 11, 1963.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Navajo County, Don T. Udall, J.

Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., Stirley Newell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Denzil G. Tyler, Winslow, for appellant.


Walter B. Buckmaster was convicted on his plea of guilty to each of two counts in an information charging Obtaining Money or Property by Bogus Check, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the Arizona State Prison for not less than three (3) nor more than five (5) years on each count, the two sentences to run concurrently. He now appeals on the grounds that (1) the court erred in failing to consolidate the two counts into one, as there was only one victim and both checks were written on the same date, and (2) the sentences were excessive inasmuch as this was his first offense.

Both assignments are without merit. The facts show that defendant purchased from Holbrook Auto Sales a 1955 GMC 3/4 ton pickup and paid for the same with a check in the sum of $465.50. The defendant also presented another check to the same victim for $20.00 and received money in consideration thereof. Defendant does not deny that both checks were false and bogus.

The effect of a plea of guilty is the same as if the defendant had been tried before a jury and had been found guilty upon evidence covering all material facts. Bridges v. United States, 259 F.2d 611 (9 Cir., 1958). Further, although both the checks may have been issued to one person each check under the circumstances in this case did constitute a separate crime under A.R.S. § 13-311.

"A person who, with intent to cheat and defraud, obtains or attempts to obtain from any other person, money, property, or valuable thing, by means or by use of any false or bogus check * * * is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one nor more than five years." (Emphasis supplied.)

Within the limits of the penalty prescribed by law, the sentence upon conviction of a crime is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. "[H]e should consider not only the circumstances of the offense charged but also the moral character and past conduct of the defendant himself in order that he may grade the punishment in accordance [therewith]." State v. Castano, 89 Ariz. 231, 360 P.2d 479 (1961). The record shows that the defendant has a long criminal record of writing bad or bogus checks and forgery. We find there was no abuse of the trial court's discretion.

Judgment affirmed.

STRUCKMEYER and JENNINGS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Buckmaster

Supreme Court of Arizona
Jul 11, 1963
383 P.2d 869 (Ariz. 1963)
Case details for

State v. Buckmaster

Case Details

Full title:The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Walter B. BUCKMASTER, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Arizona

Date published: Jul 11, 1963

Citations

383 P.2d 869 (Ariz. 1963)
383 P.2d 869

Citing Cases

State v. Taylor

The principle has been adopted by our Supreme Court. Where a defendant passed two checks on the same date to…

State v. Sparks

"The effect of a plea of guilty is the same as if the defendant had been tried before a jury and had been…