and you could be sentenced to prison. Because you are now on standard probation supervision, it would not be mandatory that you be sentenced to prison. (Emphasis added.) Botkin was not informed that if he pled guilty to the 2004 offense, the court would be required to revoke his probation from the 2000 offenses and sentence him to imprisonment for those offenses. Instead, Botkin was told the opposite: that “it would not be mandatory” that he be sentenced to imprisonment. Accordingly, if the trial court considers and finds a Boykin violation with respect to Botkin’s plea agreement on the 2004 offense, we presume the court will either vacate the plea agreement or allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. See State v. Gordon, 125 Ariz. 425, 428 n. 2, 610 P.2d 59, 62 n. 2 (1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Ariz. R.Crim. P. 17.5 (granting
holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional holding remedy for boykin violation is not reduction in sentence but either setting aside guilty plea as unintelligent or remand to determine if defendant was properly advised of possible sentences holding that defendant was entitled to withdraw guilty plea upon habeas corpus proceedings where he pled guilty in exchange for an illegal sentence holding that a brady violation is waived by guilty plea holding failure to advise of right to compel witnesses and plead not guilty are not required by boykin and there is absolutely no requirement that defendant be advised of any other rights in order to be able to enter a valid guilty plea