State v. Schmidt
208 P.3d 214, 220 Ariz. 563 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits increasing a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory presumptive term based solely on a vague, "catch-all" aggravating factor that allows a court to consider "any other factors which the court may deem appropriate to the ends of justice."
Facts:
- In April 1993, Michael Dimetrius Schmidt entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to one count of sexual abuse (count 4) and one count of attempted sexual abuse (count 5).
- Pursuant to the agreement, Schmidt was sentenced to ten years in prison on count 4 and lifetime probation on count 5.
- After serving his prison sentence, Schmidt was released and began serving his probation term.
- Over the next two years, Schmidt repeatedly engaged in conduct that led to three separate petitions to revoke his probation.
Procedural Posture:
- After Michael Dimetrius Schmidt violated his probation for the third time, the trial court revoked his probation on a conviction for attempted sexual abuse.
- At resentencing, the trial court imposed an aggravated sentence of 12.5 years, exceeding the 10-year presumptive term.
- The court justified the aggravated sentence solely by invoking the 'catch-all' aggravating factor in A.R.S. § 13-702(D)(13), citing Schmidt's prior conviction on a related count.
- Schmidt filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court, which was denied.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, denied Schmidt's petition for review.
- The Arizona Supreme Court, the state's highest court, granted Schmidt's petition for review to address the use of the catch-all aggravator.
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 using a vague, 'catch-all' statutory provision as the sole aggravating factor to increase a defendant's sentence beyond the presumptive term violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Bales, J.
Yes, using a vague, 'catch-all' provision as the sole basis for an aggravated sentence violates the Due Process Clause. The core of due process is protection against arbitrary government action, and the vagueness doctrine requires that criminal statutes provide fair notice and prevent arbitrary enforcement. Under the Apprendi line of cases, any fact that increases a sentence beyond the statutory maximum (which in Arizona is the presumptive sentence) is the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense. A 'catch-all' aggravator, such as 'any other factors which the court may deem appropriate,' is patently vague and gives the sentencing court virtually unlimited post-hoc discretion to define the elements of an aggravated offense. This violates due process by failing to provide notice and inviting arbitrary application. However, if a defendant is made eligible for an aggravated sentence by a properly found, enumerated aggravating factor, a court may then consider other factors falling under the 'catch-all' provision in exercising its discretion to set a sentence within that newly authorized higher range.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curbs judicial discretion at sentencing by invalidating the use of Arizona's 'catch-all' aggravator as the sole basis for enhancing a sentence beyond the presumptive term. It applies the constitutional vagueness doctrine, traditionally used for criminal statutes, directly to sentencing factors that function as elements of an offense under Apprendi. The ruling forces prosecutors and judges to rely on specific, legislatively enumerated aggravating factors to justify an increased sentence, thereby promoting consistency and protecting defendants from arbitrary sentencing. It clarifies that while 'catch-all' provisions can inform a judge's discretion, they cannot be used to create eligibility for a higher sentencing range in the first place.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Schmidt