Hargie Lee Lewis was charged with two felony counts, under A.R.S. § 13-491 with the crime of kidnapping, and under A.R.S. § 13-611 with the crime of rape. On November 6, 1967 he changed his plea to the charge of rape from not guilty to guilty and the charge of kidnapping was dismissed. From the conviction and sentence to a term of imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than fifteen years, he brings this delayed appeal.
Lewis urges that the information charging the crime of rape was not sufficient to support a plea of guilty because it did not allege that the victim was not his wife. He cites this court to Browning v. State, 53 Ariz. 174, 87 P.2d 112, wherein we held that in an information charging rape it was necessary to negative the existence of the relationship of husband and wife between the defendant and the victim. The rule announced in that case was, however, superseded in 1939 by the adoption of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, A.R.S. 17. There, by Rule 148, it became permissible to charge rape simply as “A. B. raped (or ravished) C. D.”
By A.R.S. § 13-611, rape is divided into first and second degrees, and by Rule 142 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, where an offense is divided in degrees an information may charge the offense without specifying the degree. Consequently, we conclude that although the information neither alleged that the victim was not the wife of the defendant nor specified the degree of the crime, being a valid charge it was sufficient to support a lawful plea of guilty. State v. Peel, 99 Ariz. 174, 407 P.2d 756.
Defendant relies on Criminal Rules 185 and 186 which require that on a plea of guilty the trial judge shall determine the degree of the offense and render a judgment and sentence accordingly. He urges that because the information did not specify the degree of rape and because the court did not determine the degree, in derogation of the requirements of Rules 185 and 186, the defendant’s plea of guilty should be treated as void and of no force or effect. We note that in some states it has been held that it is mandatory for the trial judge to comply with such requirements as are embodied in Rules 185 and 186. Anno. 34 A.L.R.2d 919 (1954), Plea of Guilty — Degree of Offense. But we do not think defendant was prejudiced by the court’s failure and, therefore, we believe the error was purely technical and harmless.
A.R.S. § 13-611 provides:
“A. Rape in the first degree is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with *165a female, not the wife of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances :
******
2. Where the female resists, but her resistance is overcome by force or violence.
3. Where the female is prevented from resisting by threats of immediate and great bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution, * * *
*"*****
B. Rape in the second degree is an act of sexual intercourse with a female, not the wife of the perpetrator, under the age of eighteen years, under circumstances not amounting to rape in the first degree. As amended Laws 1962, Ch. 52, § 1."
The record submitted to this Court includes the statement of facts on conviction signed by the County Attorney of Maricopa County. In part its reads:
“On August 14, 1967, the defendant, codefendant and Cozette Clay abducted Lorraine Glenda Newman while she was waiting for a bus at Twelfth Street and Broadway in Phoenix, Arizona. The victim was then taken into the desert near Laveen or St. Johns and forcibly raped by the defendant and codefendant, while Cozette Clay held a knife at her throat.”
Moreover, in the companion case of State v. Scott, appealed to this court, see 105 Ariz. 109, 460 P.2d 3, the facts as recited in the decision established that the victim was waiting for a bus at Twelfth Street and Broadway in Phoenix when a car containing three persons drove up; that the victim was dragged into the car and driven out of Phoenix into the Laveen — St. Johns area; that while she was being threatened by a knife, Scott and the defendant Lewis forced her to undress and raped her. Since rape in the first degree is an act of sexual intercourse where the female resists but her resistance is overcome by force or the female is prevented from resisting by threats of immediate and great bodily harm accompanied by apparent power of execution, the offense here is rape in the first degree.
As stated, Criminal Rule 186 provides that the trial judge “shall * * * determine the degree of the offense * * and render judgment and sentence accordingly.” The reason for the rule requiring the determination of the degree of the offense is so that a proper sentence and judgment may be pronounced. By the Arizona statute A.R.S. § 13-614, the punishment for rape in the first degree is imprisonment in the state prison for life or any term of years not less than five, and punishment for rape in the second degree is imprisonment in the state prison for life or any term of years in excess of one year or by imprisonment in the county jail for not to exceed one year. The court’s sentence of no less than ten nor more than fifteen years is within the range and limits of the punishment for both rape in the first and rape in the second degree.
Criminal Rule 186 provides that the court shall examine defendant and witnesses, “if necessary,” to determine the degree of the offense. The rule is obviously conditional and we do not construe it as mandatorily requiring in every instance the examination of the defendant and witnesses before an appropriate sentence and judgment are pronounced. There are other means, such as probation officers’ reports, by which the Arizona courts customarily determine facts upon which to pass judgment and sentence after a plea of guilty has been entered.
Consequently, we do not presume that the lower court acted in this important matter without being appropriately advised of the details of the offense and other relevant facts. For this reason, and because the sentence is within the legal limits of both first and second degree rape, the error of the court in failing to comply with Rules *166185 and 186 is at the most technical error and harmless.
Judgment affirmed.
HAYS, V. C. J., and UDALL, J., concur.