State v. Nixon
762 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 8, 242 Ariz. 242, 394 P.3d 667 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that regulates a person's present status, such as being a convicted felon, is not an impermissible retroactive law even if that status was acquired from an event that occurred before the statute's enactment. The statute is considered prospective because it applies to the person's status at the time the law takes effect, rather than attaching new legal consequences to the completed past event.
Facts:
- In 1987, Robert Nixon pled guilty to attempted child molestation.
- The trial court sentenced Nixon to 15 years' probation.
- At the time of Nixon's 1987 conviction, Arizona law suspended certain civil rights for felons but did not suspend the right to possess a firearm.
- In 1994, while Nixon was still on probation and his civil rights were suspended, the Arizona Legislature amended A.R.S. § 13-904 to include the suspension of a convicted felon's right to possess a gun.
- Nixon completed his probation in 2002.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2007, Nixon filed a motion in a state trial court seeking restoration of his civil rights, including the right to possess a firearm.
- The trial court denied the request to restore his gun rights.
- In 2016, Nixon renewed his request for restoration of his gun rights in the same trial court.
- The trial court again denied the request, ruling that its decision was discretionary.
- Nixon, as appellant, timely appealed the trial court's 2016 order to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
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 applying a statute that suspends a felon's right to possess a firearm to an individual who was convicted of that felony before the statute's enactment constitute an impermissible retroactive application of the law?
Opinions:
Majority - Howe, Judge
No, applying the statute to an individual convicted before its enactment does not constitute a retroactive application. A statute is retroactive only when it attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment. The court reasoned that the 1994 law, A.R.S. § 13-904(A)(5), did not attach a new consequence to Nixon's 1987 conviction. Instead, it prospectively regulated his status as a convicted felon, which existed at the time the law was passed. The statute relates to the antecedent fact of his conviction but operates on his present status, thus avoiding retroactivity. The court found this case indistinguishable from State v. Olvera, which held that the statute's application was based on the defendant's status as a felon when the law changed, not on the date of the original conviction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal distinction between a statute that impermissibly acts on a past, completed event and one that permissibly regulates a present status resulting from that past event. It affirms the state's authority to enact public safety regulations, such as firearm prohibitions for felons, and apply them broadly to all individuals who hold that status, regardless of when the felony was committed. This precedent limits challenges based on retroactivity for status-based regulations, giving legislatures greater flexibility to address current social issues without being constrained by the timing of past conduct that created the regulated status.
