Federal ruling could mean changes for Arizona sentencing practices


Paul Davenport
Associated Press
Jun. 28, 2004 02:50 PM


A U.S. Supreme Court ruling put a legal cloud over sentencing practices used in Arizona and may prompt prosecutors to ask the Legislature to meet in special session, criminal justice officials said Monday.

In reaction to the ruling Thursday in a case from Washington state, Arizona prosecutors may ask the Legislature to meet in special session to change state criminal sentencing laws, officials said.

"The decision will have major ramifications in Arizona," Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley said in a statement released through an aide.

The Supreme Court ruled in the Washington case that only juries, not judges, may lengthen prison terms beyond the maximum set out in state sentencing guidelines. Dissenting judges said it will have dire consequences nationally.

"Essentially it kind of turns our sentencing structure a little bit on its ear," said Pima County Public Defender Susan Kettlewell.

At issue in Arizona are sentencing laws that allow judges to find the existence of "aggravating factors" that could warrant stiffer sentences within a specified range, Kettlewell said.

Unless the laws are changed, the ruling means juries might have to have post-conviction mini-trials on sentencing factors, Kettlewell said.

In cases being resolved through plea agreements, prosecutors likely will ask defendants to waive the need to have juries find the existence of specific aggravating factors, Kettlewell said. "It gives a little more leverage on the defense side at this point in time."

Meanwhile, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Jones plans to discuss the ruling with presiding judges from all 15 county superior courts late Tuesday, a court spokesman said.


Sentencing 'aggravating circumstances'
Aggravating circumstances that judges consider in criminal sentencings in Arizona to impose stiffer sentences:

- Serious physical injury inflicted on the victim.

- Use, threatened use or possession of a deadly weapon.

- Damaging or taking of property.

- Presence of an accomplice.

- Committing or arranging the crime for monetary gain.

- Committing the crime in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner.

- The crime was committed by a public servant and the crime related to the person's employment or office.

- Physical, emotional and financial harm caused to the victim or, if the victim died, the victim's immediate family.

- The death of an unborn child.

- Previous felony conviction within 10 years before the offense.

- Wearing body armor while committing the crime.

- The victim was at least 65 years old or was disabled.

- The defendant was serving as a fiduciary and the crime related to the fiduciary's duties.

- The crime was a hate crime motivated by malice toward a victim because the victim was a member of a group.

- A defendant's blood-alcohol was .15 or more in cases of negligent homicide, manslaughter or second-degree murder.

- The crime involved an ambush.

- The crime involved domestic violence and was committed in the presence of a child.

- The crime was for a victim's cooperation with law enforcement or involvement in crime-prevention activities.

- "Any other factor that the court deems appropriate to the ends of justice."

Wow looks like AZ is on a roll thats great! about time!

I'm not sure exactly what this means. Does it mean defendants with these circumstances will get the same time as someone without these factors? For example, if someone gets in an accident while drunk and seriously injures someone they will get the same sentence as someone who does the same thing, but kills an unborn child in the accident, also? How is this a good thing?

no depending on the az government as they will go into a session to decide to accept this or not but when people took a plea bargain and the judge decided to add a few extra years to the plea agreement this states that they can not longer do it, they must follow the guidelines and not their whims,.

OK. I think I got it. It's a good thing because it clarifies guidelines and makes sentencing more fair and balanced, not dependant on the judges' moods or feelings etc.

And less time for drug offenders ,more programs for Rehab.