State v. Henry
152 Ariz. 608, 734 P.2d 93, 1987 Ariz. LEXIS 146 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of sentence enhancement under A.R.S. § 13-604(H), multiple criminal convictions are considered to have been 'committed on the same occasion' and must be counted as a single prior conviction if they were committed at the same time and place, against the same victim, and as part of a continuous series of criminal acts.
Facts:
- In 1974, David Henry and an accomplice forced their way into an apartment complex at gunpoint.
- They ordered the complex manager to disrobe and open an office safe.
- After taking money from the safe, the accomplice gave it to Henry.
- Subsequently, Henry and his accomplice repeatedly raped the manager.
- In 1982, while on parole for the 1974 offenses, Henry committed the crime of reckless trafficking in stolen property.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1974, David Henry was convicted of armed burglary, armed robbery, and armed rape.
- In 1985, Henry was convicted in a trial court for reckless trafficking in stolen property, a crime he committed in 1982.
- The trial court judge treated the three 1974 convictions as separate prior felonies and sentenced Henry under the enhanced provisions of A.R.S. § 13-604(D), imposing a mandatory minimum of 11.25 years.
- Henry appealed his sentence to the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing the 1974 convictions should count as one prior offense.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, agreed with Henry, holding that the offenses were committed on the 'same occasion' and reduced his mandatory minimum sentence to 7.5 years.
- The State of Arizona (appellee) petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 phrase 'committed on the same occasion' under Arizona's sentence enhancement statute, A.R.S. § 13-604(H), encompass multiple distinct crimes that are committed against the same victim, at the same place, and as part of a continuous series of criminal acts, thereby requiring them to be counted as a single prior conviction for sentencing purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Feldman, Vice Chief Justice
Yes. Multiple distinct crimes committed against the same victim, at the same place, and as part of a continuous series of criminal acts were 'committed on the same occasion' and must be counted as a single prior conviction for sentence enhancement. The court rejected the state's argument that the nature of the offenses should be considered, focusing instead on the plain meaning of the statutory language. The analysis should consider the time, place, number of victims, and the continuous nature of the acts. Because Henry's 1974 offenses of armed burglary, armed robbery, and armed rape occurred at the same place, against the same victim, and as part of a continuous criminal episode, they qualify as being committed on the 'same occasion.' The court clarified that while these offenses count as one for enhancement purposes, its prior ruling in State v. Noble affirmed a judge's separate authority to impose consecutive sentences for each offense, thus preventing criminals from receiving a 'discount' for spree crimes.
Analysis:
This decision provides a clear, fact-based framework for interpreting the 'same occasion' limitation in Arizona's sentence enhancement statute, focusing on temporal and spatial proximity rather than the distinct nature of the crimes. By distinguishing between sentence enhancement for subsequent crimes and the imposition of consecutive sentences for the original crimes, the court creates a nuanced approach. It prevents the state from using a single criminal episode to disproportionately increase a sentence for a future crime, while still allowing trial courts to punish each offense within that original episode fully through consecutive sentencing. This ruling guides lower courts to apply a practical, multi-factor test and balances statutory limitations on enhancement with judicial discretion in initial sentencing.
