State v. Noble
1987 Ariz. LEXIS 130, 152 Ariz. 284, 731 P.2d 1228 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute providing that offenses "committed on the same occasion" shall be counted as a single conviction for sentence enhancement purposes applies only to the calculation of a defendant's prior convictions. This rule does not prevent a court from enhancing sentences for multiple current convictions based on prior offenses, nor does it preclude the imposition of consecutive sentences for those current offenses.
Facts:
- On December 24, 1984, Andrew Milo Noble approached a 12-year-old girl and asked for street directions.
- Noble then dragged the girl into nearby bushes.
- He forced the girl to fondle his penis, placed his hand on her genitals, and attempted to place his penis inside her vagina.
- After the assault, Noble walked with his victim for a few blocks before releasing her.
- The entire criminal episode, from when Noble approached the girl until he released her, lasted approximately thirty minutes.
- Prior to this incident, Noble had been convicted of separate felonies for armed robbery in 1971 and sexual assault in 1981.
Procedural Posture:
- A Maricopa County grand jury charged Andrew Milo Noble with three counts of child molestation and one count of kidnapping.
- A jury in the trial court found Noble guilty on all four counts.
- The trial court imposed enhanced, concurrent 25-years-to-life sentences for the three child molestation counts.
- The trial court also imposed an enhanced 25-years-to-life sentence on the kidnapping count, ordering it to be served consecutively to the child molestation sentences.
- Noble (appellant) filed a timely notice of appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, challenging the trial court's sentencing.
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.R.S. § 13-604(H), which states that convictions for offenses committed on the same occasion shall be counted as only one conviction, prevent a trial court from using a defendant's prior record to enhance the sentences for each of those current offenses and from ordering the sentences to be served consecutively?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Gordon
No. A.R.S. § 13-604(H)'s limitation on counting offenses from the 'same occasion' as a single conviction applies only when determining the number of prior convictions for sentence enhancement, not to the current offenses being sentenced. The court reasoned that § 13-604 is a repetitive offender statute focused on a defendant's past criminal history. Since Noble's prior convictions for armed robbery and sexual assault were not committed on the same occasion, they were properly used to enhance the sentences for all four of his current convictions. Furthermore, the court held that § 13-604(H) governs sentence enhancement only and places no limits on a judge's separate authority under other statutes, such as § 13-116 (double punishment) and § 13-708, to impose consecutive sentences. The court explicitly overruled prior cases, State v. Mulalley and State v. Perkins, to the extent they suggested otherwise, stating that a contrary interpretation would create an absurd incentive for criminals to commit multiple offenses in a single episode to receive only concurrent sentences.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of Arizona's repetitive offender sentencing scheme, strengthening the state's ability to impose harsh penalties. By confining the 'same occasion' rule of A.R.S. § 13-604(H) to the counting of prior offenses, the court ensures that each current conviction in a multi-count indictment can be individually enhanced based on a defendant's history. The express overruling of Mulalley and Perkins removes a major obstacle to imposing consecutive sentences for crimes committed in a single criminal episode. This gives trial judges greater discretion to fashion sentences that reflect the gravity of each separate offense, leading to potentially much longer periods of incarceration for offenders who commit multiple crimes in one spree.
