State v. Diaz
580 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 31, 224 Ariz. 322, 230 P.3d 705 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general repetitive offender sentencing statute may be used to enhance a sentence for a methamphetamine-related offense, even when a specific sentencing statute for that offense exists, unless the specific statute expressly precludes the application of the general statute.
Facts:
- In 2007, Daniel Diaz was found to be in possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale.
- At the time of the offense, Diaz was on felony probation.
- Diaz had two prior historical felony convictions.
- Neither of Diaz's prior felony convictions were related to methamphetamine.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Diaz was convicted of possessing methamphetamine for sale in an Arizona trial court.
- The trial court sentenced Diaz under the general repetitive offender statute, A.R.S. § 13-703(C), to an aggravated term of twenty-five years.
- Diaz, as appellant, appealed his sentence to the Arizona Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding that the specific methamphetamine sentencing statute, A.R.S. § 13-709.03, should have been applied.
- The State of Arizona petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court (highest court) for review of the Court of Appeals' decision on the sentencing issue.
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's specific methamphetamine sentencing statute, A.R.S. § 13-709.03, preclude a trial court from applying the general repetitive offender statute, A.R.S. § 13-703, to enhance a sentence for a defendant whose historical prior felony convictions are not methamphetamine-related?
Opinions:
Majority - Berch, Chief Justice
No. The specific methamphetamine sentencing statute does not preclude the trial court from enhancing a sentence under the general repetitive offender statute when the defendant's prior convictions are not methamphetamine-related. The court's primary task is to harmonize competing sentencing statutes. Section 13-709.03(B) specifically enhances sentences for defendants with prior methamphetamine-related convictions but is silent regarding those with non-methamphetamine-related priors. This silence means it does not prevent the application of other relevant statutes. In contrast, the general repetitive offender statute, § 13-703(N), contains clear and broad language stating its penalties 'shall be substituted for the penalties otherwise authorized by law.' Citing precedent from State v. Tarango, the court reaffirmed that when the state properly alleges prior convictions, the general repetitive offender statute provides an exclusive sentencing scheme. This interpretation supports the legislative intent to punish recidivists more severely than first-time offenders.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the hierarchy between specific and general sentencing statutes in Arizona, establishing a strong preference for the application of general repetitive offender laws. The court established that a specific statute must contain an express exclusion to prevent the application of a general enhancement statute. This ruling strengthens the state's ability to seek harsher penalties for recidivists, regardless of whether their prior offenses are similar in nature to the current crime. It ensures that defendants cannot use a narrow, specific sentencing provision as a shield against the broader legislative policy of punishing repeat criminal conduct more severely.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Diaz