State v. Perrin
561 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4, 214 P.3d 1016, 222 Ariz. 375 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To increase a defendant's sentence beyond the presumptive maximum based on a statute requiring a minimum number of aggravating factors, each factor used to meet that minimum threshold must be a specifically enumerated factor, not a vague, non-enumerated "catch-all" factor, in order to satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process.
Facts:
- Perrin operated a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
- A minor was present in the vehicle with Perrin at the time.
- Perrin's driving resulted in the death of another person, leading to a manslaughter charge.
- The victim's family suffered harm as a consequence of the victim's death.
Procedural Posture:
- Perrin was convicted in a trial court pursuant to a plea agreement for manslaughter, DUI, and aggravated DUI.
- The trial court imposed a substantially aggravated sentence of 12.5 years for manslaughter, based on one enumerated factor and two 'catch-all' factors.
- Perrin filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court, which was denied.
- Perrin filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (this court).
- The Court of Appeals initially denied relief in a memorandum decision, relying on the precedent of State v. Soto-Perez.
- Perrin petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in State v. Schmidt.
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 sentencing court's use of a vague, non-enumerated 'catch-all' aggravating factor to satisfy the statutory requirement of finding two aggravating factors for imposing a substantially aggravated sentence violate a defendant's due process rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Vásquez, Judge
Yes, using a vague 'catch-all' aggravating factor to meet the statutory minimum for a substantially aggravated sentence violates a defendant's due process rights. Following the reasoning in State v. Schmidt, any fact that increases a defendant's maximum potential sentence is the functional equivalent of an element of the offense and must be clearly defined to provide fair notice. The statute for a substantially aggravated sentence required the trial court to find two aggravating factors. Because each of these factors is a functional element of the aggravated offense, both must be 'clearly enumerated aggravators' to satisfy due process. The trial court's reliance on one enumerated factor and two catch-all factors subjected Perrin to the 'unlimited post hoc discretion' that due process protects against. Therefore, the sentence is invalid, and the court's prior holding in State v. Soto-Perez, which allowed this practice, is overruled as it was decided before the controlling Supreme Court precedents of Apprendi and Blakely.
Analysis:
This decision extends the constitutional due process principles from Apprendi v. New Jersey and State v. Schmidt to sentencing schemes that require multiple aggravating factors to increase a sentence. It clarifies that every factor necessary to meet the statutory threshold for an enhanced sentence must be a specific, enumerated one, thereby limiting judicial discretion. The ruling prevents courts from using vague, subjective 'catch-all' provisions to justify harsher sentences, ensuring that defendants have clear notice of the specific conduct that could expose them to greater punishment. By explicitly overruling State v. Soto-Perez, the court solidifies this stricter due process standard in Arizona's sentencing jurisprudence.
