State v. Cons
208 Ariz. 409, 94 P.3d 609, 430 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 63 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the state seeks to enhance a defendant's sentence based on prior felony convictions, the existence of those convictions must be proven to the court by clear and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Mark Anthony Cons was charged with forgery.
- The State of Arizona alleged Cons had two prior felony convictions that could be used to increase his sentence.
- The initial allegation for a Pinal County conviction listed the date of the offense and the date of the conviction as the same day: December 23, 1998.
- The initial allegation for a Maricopa County conviction listed an incorrect conviction date of June 30, 1999.
- The state later corrected the Pinal County conviction date to March 15, 1999, and the Maricopa County conviction date to August 13, 1998.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Arizona charged Mark Anthony Cons with forgery in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, the trial court of first instance.
- The State filed an allegation of two prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement purposes.
- A jury found Cons guilty of forgery.
- The State then moved to amend its allegation of prior convictions to correct clerical errors regarding the conviction dates.
- The trial court granted the State's motion to amend.
- Following a separate bench trial on the prior convictions, the trial court found the State had proven the allegations.
- The trial court sentenced Cons to an enhanced presumptive prison term of ten years.
- Cons, as appellant, appealed the judgment and sentence to the Arizona Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate 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 the state have to prove prior convictions used for sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a lesser standard of proof constitutionally permissible?
Opinions:
Majority - Espinosa, Acting Presiding J.
No. The state does not have to prove prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, prior convictions for sentence enhancement purposes must be established by clear and convincing evidence. The court first found that amending the allegations of prior convictions to correct clerical errors in the dates was not an error. These amendments did not prejudice the defendant or violate his due process rights, as he had ample notice of the specific prior convictions the state intended to use. On the main issue, the court reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey explicitly created an exception for prior convictions from the general rule that any fact increasing a sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that since a jury is not required to find the fact of a prior conviction, the jury's traditional standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is also not required. Recognizing the significant impact of sentence enhancements, the court adopted the intermediate standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' as the appropriate burden of proof for the court to apply when finding the existence of prior convictions.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard of proof for a critical aspect of criminal sentencing in Arizona, aligning state procedure with the constitutional framework established by Apprendi v. New Jersey. By lowering the standard from the previously assumed 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'clear and convincing evidence,' the court makes it procedurally easier for the state to prove recidivism for sentence enhancement. This ruling reinforces the unique status of prior convictions in sentencing jurisprudence, treating them as distinct from elements of the offense or other sentence-enhancing facts that must be found by a jury. This precedent will likely streamline sentencing hearings for repeat offenders in Arizona.
