State v. Henry

Citations: 734 P.2d 93; 152 Ariz. 608; 1987 Ariz. LEXIS 146Docket: CR-86-0003-PR

Court: Arizona Supreme Court; March 4, 1987; Arizona; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

David Henry was convicted of recklessly trafficking in stolen property, a class 3 felony, and received an enhanced sentence due to being a prior offender on parole, as per A.R.S. 13-604. Henry contends that the enhancement violates A.R.S. 13-604(H), which limits enhancements for multiple convictions arising from crimes committed on the "same occasion." The Supreme Court of Arizona is reviewing the applicability of this statute.

In 1974, Henry and an accomplice committed armed burglary, robbery, and rape, receiving concurrent sentences of twenty years each. In 1982, while on parole, he committed the new felony. The sentencing judge classified Henry’s 1974 convictions as separate, thus applying A.R.S. 13-604(D), which imposes stricter sentence enhancements for individuals with multiple prior felonies.

Henry argues that his three 1974 convictions occurred during a single incident and should be treated as one conviction under A.R.S. 13-604(H). If his interpretation is valid, he would qualify for a less severe sentence enhancement under subsection (B), which applies to those with only one prior felony conviction. This would reduce his mandatory minimum sentence from 11.25 years to 7.5 years. The state counters that subsection (H) only pertains to offenses consolidated for trial and not to enhancements under other subsections. 

The court is tasked with determining whether subsection (H) applies to all enhancement provisions of A.R.S. 13-604.

If a defendant is convicted of multiple crimes committed on the "same occasion," A.R.S. 13-604(H) prohibits using those convictions to enhance the sentence for another crime. In this case, the defendant was later convicted of a fourth crime, and the state sought to enhance the sentence using prior convictions for the first three crimes. The court clarified that subsection (H) applies to all enhancements under A.R.S. 13-604, meaning prior convictions for crimes from the same occasion count as one for sentence enhancement purposes. 

The court of appeals determined that burglary, robbery, and rape committed during a single criminal episode should be treated as one prior conviction for enhancement. The state argued that the rape should be considered a separate offense because it was not a foreseeable consequence of the other crimes, despite occurring in the same place and time. The state claimed that not all crimes from a single episode qualify as spree crimes and should be evaluated based on their interrelationship.

While acknowledging the state's emotional appeal, the court upheld the interpretation from Noble, which clarified that A.R.S. 13-604(H) limits enhancements only under that statute and does not restrict consecutive sentencing under other provisions. As per Noble, the convictions from the 1974 episode could result in concurrent sentences for burglary and robbery, with a consecutive sentence for the rape conviction.

Noble addresses Henry's claim regarding A.R.S. 13-604(H), asserting that it does not limit the trial judge’s authority to impose consecutive sentences for trafficking in stolen goods alongside sentences for Henry's 1974 convictions. The court clarifies that this statute permits consecutive sentences, which prevents offenders from receiving leniency for committing multiple offenses in a spree. The term "same occasion" is defined to mean crimes occurring at the same time and place, including those within a single criminal episode or connected series of events. The Arizona Criminal Code Commission's commentary supports that crimes such as robbery and kidnapping committed during an escape are on the same occasion. While recognizing challenges in defining "occasion," the court asserts that crimes occurring in close temporal and spatial proximity against the same victim(s) qualify as being committed on the same occasion. In applying these principles, it is concluded that Henry's 1974 offenses occurred on the same occasion, as they involved the same victim and location, forming part of a continuous series of acts. Consequently, the court of appeals’ decision to reduce Henry's sentence from 11.25 years to 7.5 years, to be served consecutively with the 1974 sentences, is upheld. The judgement is affirmed, with concurrence from the justices involved.

A.R.S. 13-604(D) mandates that individuals convicted of a class 2 or 3 felony, who have prior felony convictions, face imprisonment of at least double and up to four times the sentence authorized for the current offense under section 13-701. Such individuals are ineligible for sentence suspension, commutation, probation, pardon, parole, work furlough, or any other form of release until at least two-thirds of their sentence is served. The court is required to impose a presumptive term of three-fourths of the median allowable range for the sentence. Additionally, subsection (B) establishes that while it does not increase the minimum sentence, it allows for a maximum increase of up to three times the authorized sentence for individuals with any prior felony conviction, with similar ineligibility conditions for early release. The statute does not permit the state to consider the nature of offenses to determine if they were foreseeably related, a consideration more suited to A.R.S. 13-116 regarding double punishment for consecutive sentences. The case of Perkins was overruled by Noble regarding consecutive sentencing under 13-604(H), but Perkins remains applicable to the definition of "same occasion."