State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser
105 P.3d 1158, 445 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 31, 209 Ariz. 539 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Arizona law, a prior felony conviction that is too old to qualify as a "historical prior felony conviction" for sentence enhancement under A.R.S. § 13-604 can still be used for a less severe sentence enhancement under the plain language of A.R.S. § 13-702.02.
Facts:
- On February 24, 1991, Mark Dancy committed theft, a class six felony.
- On April 28, 1994, Dancy committed possession of marijuana, also a class six felony.
- Dancy was subsequently charged with theft of a means of transportation, a class three felony.
- Both of Dancy's prior offenses were committed more than five years before the date of the new alleged offense.
- Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 13-604(V)(2)(c), a class six felony must have been committed within the five years immediately preceding the date of the present offense to be considered a "historical prior felony conviction" for sentence enhancement.
Procedural Posture:
- The State indicted Mark Dancy for theft in Arizona superior court (trial court).
- The State amended the indictment to allege two prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement purposes.
- Dancy filed a motion to strike the allegations of prior convictions.
- The superior court granted Dancy’s motion to strike the allegations.
- The State filed a special action petition with the Arizona Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeals declined to accept jurisdiction.
- The State then filed a special action petition with the Supreme Court of Arizona (highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prior felony conviction that falls outside the statutory time limits for a "historical prior felony conviction" under A.R.S. § 13-604(V) still qualify for sentence enhancement under A.R.S. § 13-702.02?
Opinions:
Majority - Hurwitz, Justice.
Yes, a prior felony conviction that falls outside the statutory time limits for a "historical prior felony conviction" still qualifies for sentence enhancement under A.R.S. § 13-702.02. The plain text of § 13-702.02(A) explicitly creates two categories of offenses that trigger its enhancement provisions: (1) offenses consolidated for trial and (2) offenses that 'are not historical prior felony convictions as defined in section 13-604.' Because Dancy's priors were committed more than five years before the current offense, they are, by definition, 'not historical prior felony convictions' and thus fall squarely within the second category established by the statute's plain language. The court rejected the argument that this leads to an absurd result, explaining that the legislature intentionally created a tiered sentencing scheme. This scheme provides for the most punitive enhancement under § 13-604 for recent or serious priors, a more lenient enhancement under § 13-702.02 for older or less serious priors, and no enhancement for first-time offenders. This structure represents a rational policy choice, and to interpret the statute otherwise would render the 1996 amendment that added this language completely superfluous.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the relationship between Arizona's two main sentencing enhancement statutes, establishing A.R.S. § 13-702.02 as an intermediate or 'catch-all' provision for prior felonies that do not meet the strict recency and seriousness requirements of A.R.S. § 13-604. The case is a strong affirmation of the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation, holding that clear statutory text will govern even if legislative history or titles might suggest a narrower intent. The ruling ensures that nearly all prior felony convictions, regardless of age, can be used for some level of sentence enhancement, preventing defendants with older criminal histories from being sentenced as if they were first-time offenders.
