State v. Griswold

12 Citing cases

  1. Griswold v. Gomes

    111 Ariz. 59 (Ariz. 1974)   Cited 7 times

    Following the preliminary hearing, he was held to answer in the Superior Court of Apache County where he pled guilty to a reduced charge of second degree murder. On 20 March 1966, after a mitigation hearing, appellant was sentenced to serve a term of not less than 36 nor more than 40 years in the Arizona State Prison. Notice of appeal was filed and Griswold's conviction was upheld by this court in State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693 (1967), cert. den. 388 U.S. 913, 87 S.Ct. 2113, 18 L.Ed.2d 1352. On 29 March 1968, appellant filed a petition for writ of coram nobis with this court. The motion was granted on 11 April 1968 and the Apache County Superior Court was ordered to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant fully understood the consequences of his plea and whether he voluntarily pled guilty to second degree murder.

  2. State v. Snyder

    119 Idaho 376 (Idaho 1991)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that state has jurisdiction to prosecute a non-Indian for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol within the boundary of an Indian reservation

    United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978); New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946); State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181, 669 P.2d 614 (Ct.App. 1983); Ryder v. State, 98 N.M. 316, 648 P.2d 774 (1982); Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d 114 (Okla. 1982); Vialpando v. State, 640 P.2d 77 (Wyo. 1982); United States v. Cleveland, 503 F.2d 1067 (9th Cir. 1975); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693 (1967); State v. Roedl, 107 Utah 538, 155 P.2d 741 (1945). In Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 109 L.Ed.2d 693 (1990), the United States Supreme Court recently cited United States v. McBratney and noted:

  3. State v. Griswold

    457 P.2d 331 (Ariz. 1969)   Cited 66 times
    In State v. Griswold, 105 Ariz. 1, 457 P.2d 331 (1969), we took the position that the decision in Boykin, supra, would only be applied prospectively.

    On March 30th, 1966, after a hearing in mitigation, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the state prison of not less than thirty-six nor more than forty years. From the sentence and conviction he appealed. This court affirmed, State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693. Two questions were presented for disposition on Griswold's appeal, the first being whether the Superior Court of Apache County had the necessary jurisdiction to hear and determine the case and the second, whether the sentence was excessive.

  4. Griswold v. Eyman

    452 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1972)   Cited 2 times

    On March 18, 1966, he plead guilty to a charge of second-degree murder, reduced from the prior charge of murder in the first degree. His sentence was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court. State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693 (1967). In April, 1968, appellant filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis in the Arizona Supreme Court.

  5. State v. Munninger

    209 Ariz. 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 18 times
    Rejecting "one-factor-is-enough approach" in refusing to "automatically uphold sentences based on the presence of a single aggravating factor when the sentencing judge relied on others not properly found by a jury"

    Instead it is an exercise of judicial discretion. See State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 578, 422 P.2d 693, 694 (1967) (sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion reviewable only for abuse of discretion). ¶ 19

  6. State v. Verdugo

    183 Ariz. 135 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that defendant bears burden of showing Indian status and that crime occurred in Indian country to establish trial court's lack of jurisdiction

    The law is well settled that when a crime is committed by a non-Indian against a non-Indian on an Indian reservation, the state courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 110 S.Ct. 2053, 109 L.Ed.2d 693 (1990); State v. Moore, 173 Ariz. 236, 841 P.2d 231 (App. 1992); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693 (1967). This court had and exercised proper jurisdiction over the defendant.

  7. State v. Moore

    173 Ariz. 236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1882) (Colorado had exclusive jurisdiction over a white defendant who murdered a white victim on an Indian reservation); Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896) (Montana had exclusive jurisdiction over a black defendant who murdered a black victim on an Indian reservation); New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496, 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946) (State of New York had exclusive jurisdiction over a non-Indian defendant who murdered a non-Indian victim on an Indian reservation); see also Cohen at 298. Although the State of Arizona follows the McBratney-Draper-Martin holdings, State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354, 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693, cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913, 87 S.Ct. 2113, 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967), State v. Burrola, 137 Ariz. 181, 669 P.2d 614 (App. 1983), they are not directly on point with this case. Here, the defendant is a non-Indian, but the offense to which he pled was not one against a non-Indian.

  8. State v. Flint

    157 Ariz. 227 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 8 times

    The court first noted the long-established exception to exclusive federal jurisdiction which provides for exclusive state jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against non-Indians, even though on the reservation. McBratney, 104 U.S. (14 Otto) 621; State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 578, 422 P.2d 693, 694 (1967). The rationale for this exception is that such crimes do not involve essential tribal relations or affect the rights of Indians.

  9. State v. Burrola

    669 P.2d 614 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 7 times
    In Burrola, this court found that the state had jurisdiction where a non-Indian committed a victimless crime on the Indian reservation.

    Relying on these cases, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that the state has jurisdiction to try a non-Indian defendant in a state court where the offense occurred on an Indian reservation and the victim was also a non-Indian. See State v. Attebery, 110 Ariz. 354, 519 P.2d 53 (1974); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693, cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913, 87 S.Ct. 2113, 18 L.Ed.2d 1352 (1967). This application of state law has been sanctioned in cases not involving essential tribal relations or jeopardizing rights of Indians.

  10. State v. Herber

    123 Ariz. 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 5 times
    In State v. Herber, 123 Ariz. 214, 598 P.2d 1033 (1979), the conviction of a non-Indian for possession of marijuana on an Indian reservation was upheld.

    Jurisdiction of Arizona to prosecute and punish non-Indians for crimes against non-Indians committed on an Indian reservation is beyond dispute. United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1881); State v. Griswold, 101 Ariz. 577, 422 P.2d 693 (1967); and see United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 324, n. 21, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 1087, n. 21, 55 L.Ed.2d 303, 313, n. 21 (1978). Conversely, Indian tribal courts lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.