State v. Benak
346 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 14, 18 P.3d 127, 199 Ariz. 333 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Arizona law, to render a defendant ineligible for mandatory probation on a drug possession conviction due to a prior violent crime, the State must allege the existence of the prior violent crime before trial to provide the defendant with adequate notice.
Facts:
- David J. Benak was charged with several offenses, including possession of a dangerous drug.
- This was Benak's first conviction for a drug offense.
- Benak had prior felony convictions, one of which was for aggravated assault.
- Arizona's Proposition 200, codified in A.R.S. § 13-901.01, generally requires a sentence of probation for first- or second-time personal drug possession offenders.
- The same statute makes an offender ineligible for probation if they have previously been convicted of a 'violent crime'.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged David J. Benak in an Arizona trial court with offenses including possession of a dangerous drug.
- Before trial, the State filed a formal allegation that Benak had prior nondangerous felony convictions.
- A jury convicted Benak of possessing a dangerous drug, possessing drug paraphernalia, and resisting arrest.
- At sentencing, the trial court found that one of Benak's prior convictions (for aggravated assault) qualified as a 'violent crime.'
- Based on this finding, the trial court ruled Benak was ineligible for probation and sentenced him to an eight-year prison term for the drug possession conviction.
- Benak (appellant) appealed his sentence to the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred by not sentencing him to probation.
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 Arizona law require the State to allege before trial that a defendant has a prior 'violent crime' conviction to render the defendant ineligible for mandatory probation for a drug possession offense under A.R.S. § 13-901.01?
Opinions:
Majority - Berch, J.
Yes. Arizona law requires the State to allege before trial that a defendant has a prior 'violent crime' conviction to render them ineligible for mandatory probation for a drug possession offense. The court reasoned that the probation-ineligibility statute (A.R.S. § 13-901.01) incorporates the definition of 'violent crime' from A.R.S. § 13-604.04, which itself contains a pretrial notice requirement. The statutory history confirms that the notice requirement is an integral part of the legislative scheme. Furthermore, fundamental fairness and due process require pretrial notice of any allegation that would enhance a sentence, as it allows a defendant to know the full range of potential punishment and evaluate their options, such as whether to accept a plea offer. In this case, the State's allegation of prior nondangerous felonies was insufficient and misleading, and did not provide adequate notice of its intent to argue that one of the priors was a 'violent crime' that would preclude probation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a critical procedural safeguard for defendants in Arizona under the Proposition 200 sentencing scheme. It establishes that the State cannot use a prior conviction to defeat a defendant's eligibility for mandatory probation unless it provides specific and timely pretrial notice of its intent to classify that conviction as a 'violent crime.' This prevents 'sentencing by ambush' and ensures that defendants can make fully informed decisions about plea bargains versus going to trial. The ruling reinforces the broader due process principle that any fact used to enhance a defendant's punishment beyond the standard range must be formally alleged by the prosecution before trial.
