State v. Johnson ( 1978 )

HAYS, Justice.

Appellant Thomas Harold Johnson pleaded guilty to a charge of child molestation arising from acts committed upon his three-year-old daughter. He was sentenced to serve four to ten years in the Arizona State Prison. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under 17A A.R.S. Supreme Court Rules, rule 47(e).

Appellant urges that his guilty plea should be vacated because the record does not show that he understood the elements of the crime of child molestation. Appellant states that an essential element of the offense of child molestation is that the acts involved be “motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest or intent with respect to children.” State v. Berry, 101 Ariz. 310, 419 P.2d 337, 340 (1966); State v. Tre-nary, 79 Ariz. 351, 290 P.2d 250 (1955).

According to the reports of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, which were summarized in the presentence report, appellant’s three-year-old daughter was taken to a hospital by her grandmother because the grandmother suspected the child had been sexually molested. A medical examination indicated that the child had been molested, that there had been penetration, and that there was sperm deposited in the child’s vagina. The child also told a nurse that her father (appellant) had committed the acts which required her to come to the hospital. The child described to sheriff’s deputies acts of physical penetration committed upon her by her father. Since it is proper to use a presentence report to obtain facts in support of a guilty plea, the above summary may be used to determine the factual basis of the guilty plea in this case. State v. Murrillo, 116 Ariz. 441, 569 P.2d 1339 (1977).

As indicated in the presentence report, the appellant admitted in some detail the acts necessary to establish the elements of the offense. These acts by their very nature show that appellant was “motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest or intent with respect to children.” Under the facts of this case, we find no need for the appellant to be explicitly informed of the motivation element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. This analysis clearly distinguishes the instant case from Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976). In Henderson, supra, the acts which the accused admitted did not support the intent element of the crime, and there was no other indication of intent in the Henderson record.

Having reviewed the entire record and finding no reversible error, the judgment of conviction and the sentence are affirmed.

CAMERON, C. J., and STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and HOLOHAN, J., concur.