§ 7.2 SENTENCING

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 7.2 SENTENCING

Blakely v. Washington,542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004)

Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. When a defendant pleads guilty, the State is free to seek judicial sentence enhancements so long as the defendant either stipulates to the relevant facts or consents to judicial factfinding. If appropriate waivers are procured, States may continue to offer judicial factfinding as a matter of course to all defendants who plead guilty. Even a defendant who stands trial may consent to judicial factfinding as to sentence enhancements, which may well be in his interest if relevant evidence would prejudice him at trial.

Newkirk v. Nothwehr,210 Ariz. 601, 115 P.3d 12 (App. Div. 1, 2005)

Defendants do not have a right to a jury trial on an allegation of a prior conviction. A trial court may deny a defendant's request for a jury trial on that basis.

State v. Pitts,178 Ariz. 405, 874 P.2d 962 (1994)

A trial court can consider a defendant's prior DUI convictions as aggravating factors in sentencing the defendant for an aggravated DUI, even though one of the priors formed part of the factual basis for the present charge. In the present case, the defendant's second DUI resulted in loss of driving privileges and probation, which defendant violated 10 days later while driving drunk a third time. The trial court properly considered the defendant's prior misdemeanor convictions as aggravating factors in sentencing the defendant for aggravated DUI.

State v. Campa,168 Ariz. 407, 814 P.2d 748 (1991)

The section of the criminal code that provides for enhanced punishment for dangerous and repetitive offenders applies to driving offenses defined as felonies.

State v. Cooney,233 Ariz. 335, 312 P.3d 134 (App. Div. 2, 2013)

Cooney argued that his right to protection from double jeopardy was violated when his two prior DUI convictions were used as elements, and not aggravating factors of his aggravated DUI charge. However, the court stated that Cooney was being punished "more severely for a recent crime based on his having committed previous crimes, which is precisely what courts have long held is constitutionally permissible." Even if the prior convictions were elements, and not sentencing factors, Cooney did not cite to anything indicating that this changed anything.

State v. Holguin,177 Ariz. 589, 870...