State v. Bly
621 P.2d 279, 1980 Ariz. LEXIS 306, 127 Ariz. 370 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative sentencing scheme that uses a single element of an offense, such as the use of a deadly weapon, at multiple points in the sentencing determination does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on double jeopardy, as it constitutes the definition of a single, enhanced punishment for a single offense rather than multiple punishments for the same act.
Facts:
- Bly committed two separate robberies.
- During the commission of each robbery, Bly used a deadly weapon.
- The use of a deadly weapon elevated the crimes to armed robbery, a class 2 felony under Arizona law.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant Bly plead guilty to two counts of armed robbery in an Arizona trial court.
- The trial court imposed concurrent presumptive sentences of 10.5 years.
- Bly, as appellant, appealed the sentence to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals issued an opinion.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted a Petition for Review to consider the case.
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 sentencing scheme that uses a single element of an offense—the use of a deadly weapon—to increase punishment in multiple ways (by elevating the class of felony, mandating a prison term, and serving as an aggravating factor) violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hays, Justice
No, the sentencing scheme does not violate the prohibition against double punishment. The Double Jeopardy Clause primarily serves as a restraint on courts and prosecutors, while the legislature remains free to define crimes and fix punishments. The legislature's decision to use a single factor, like the use of a deadly weapon, to elevate the classification of an offense, mandate a prison term, restrict parole eligibility, and serve as an aggravating sentencing factor is not an imposition of multiple punishments for a single act. Rather, it is the legislature's method of defining a single, more severe punishment for a single, more reprehensible crime. The use of the weapon as an aggravating factor only allows the judge to adjust the sentence within the already enhanced sentencing range; it does not add a separate punishment. Therefore, the complex, multi-step process is a constitutional exercise of the legislature's power to prescribe punishment for criminal conduct.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of legislative supremacy in defining crimes and their corresponding punishments. It clarifies that the Double Jeopardy Clause's protection against multiple punishments for the same offense does not prevent the legislature from using a single criminal element to enhance a sentence in several different ways. This gives legislatures broad discretion to create complex sentencing structures that heavily penalize specific conduct, such as the use of a weapon, which they deem particularly dangerous. The ruling signals significant judicial deference to legislative sentencing policies, limiting constitutional challenges based on the structure of sentencing enhancements.
