State v. Waggoner
1985 Ariz. LEXIS 178, 144 Ariz. 237, 697 P.2d 320 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Due process requires that a defendant receive notice before trial that the state intends to seek an enhanced sentence based on the defendant's release status, but this notice is satisfied if the initial indictment cites the relevant sentence-enhancement statute.
Facts:
- Donald Austin Waggoner was on parole from confinement for a prior felony conviction.
- While on parole, Waggoner allegedly committed theft of property valued at one thousand dollars or more.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Austin Waggoner was charged by indictment with theft in Pima County, with the indictment referencing sentence enhancement statute A.R.S. § 13-604.01.
- Four days prior to the scheduled trial date, the state filed a formal allegation that Waggoner had committed the offense while on parole.
- Waggoner filed a motion in the trial court to strike the allegation, arguing it was untimely under Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16.1(b), which requires motions to be filed 20 days before trial.
- The trial court denied the motion to strike.
- A jury found Waggoner guilty of theft, and the trial court subsequently found the sentencing allegations true and imposed an enhanced sentence.
- Waggoner (as appellant) appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- Waggoner (as petitioner) sought review from the Arizona Supreme Court on the sole issue of the timeliness of the state's allegation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant's due process right to notice satisfied when the initial indictment references the sentence enhancement statute for crimes committed while on release, even if the state does not file a separate, formal allegation of the defendant's parole status until four days before trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Holohan
Yes. A defendant's due process right to notice is satisfied if the charging document provides adequate notice of the potential for an enhanced sentence. Due process and orderly procedure require that a defendant know the extent of potential punishment he faces before trial so he can make an informed decision about whether to enter a guilty plea. However, this does not require the state to file a formal allegation of parole status at least 20 days before trial. Citing the specific statute providing for enhanced punishment (A.R.S. § 13-604.01) in the original indictment is sufficient to put the defendant on notice that the prosecution intends to seek an enhanced sentence. In this case, the indictment contained the correct statutory citation, and other documents filed early in the case also referred to Waggoner's parole status, providing him with constitutionally adequate notice long before trial.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural requirements for providing notice of sentence enhancements based on a defendant's parole or release status. It establishes that the substantive due process requirement of notice can be satisfied by merely citing the relevant statute in the initial charging document, distinguishing it from other pretrial motions that have stricter deadlines. This provides prosecutors with flexibility, holding that the key constitutional concern is that the defendant is aware of their maximum potential punishment before trial, not the specific form or timing of the notice. The ruling prioritizes the substance of the notice over a rigid application of procedural rules for all filings.
