State ex rel. Romley v. Hauser

• Decision Date: 09 February 2005
• Docket Number: No. CV-04-0321-SA.,CV-04-0321-SA.
• Citation: 105 P.3d 1158,209 Ariz. 539
• Parties: STATE of Arizona ex rel. Richard M. ROMLEY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner, v. Hon. Brian R. HAUSER, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent, and Mark D. Dancy, aka Shawn Woods, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

105 P.3d 1158

209 Ariz. 539

STATE of Arizona ex rel. Richard M. ROMLEY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner, v. Hon. Brian R. HAUSER, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent, and Mark D. Dancy, aka Shawn Woods, Real Party in Interest.

No. CV-04-0321-SA.

Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc.

February 9, 2005.

Richard M. Romley, Former Maricopa County Attorney, Andrew P. Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney by Gerald R. Grant, Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix, Attorneys for Petitioner.

James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Edith M. Lucero, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, Attorneys for Real Party in Interest.

Gregory T. Parzych, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, Mesa, Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

OPINION

HURWITZ, Justice.

¶ 1 Real party in interest Mark Dancy was indicted for theft of a means of transportation, a class three felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 13-1814 (2001). The State amended the indictment to allege prior offenses for purposes of sentencing enhancement under A.R.S. § 13-702.02 (2001). The amendment alleged that Dancy had committed theft, a class six felony, on February 24, 1991, for which he was convicted on July 22, 1999, and possession of marijuana, also a class six felony, on April 28, 1994, for which he was convicted on January 21, 1997.

¶ 2 Dancy moved to strike these allegations because the prior convictions involved offenses committed more than five years before the current alleged offense and thus could not be used for sentence enhancement under A.R.S. § 13-604(V)(2)(c) (Supp.2004). The State argued in response that the time limits in § 13-604(V)(2)(c) do not apply to sentence enhancement under § 13-702.02. The superior court granted Dancy's motion and stayed the trial pending the resolution of the State's special action petition. The court of appeals declined special action jurisdiction and the State filed a special action petition in this court.

¶ 3 We accepted jurisdiction of the State's petition because the issue is one of statewide importance, is likely to recur, and the State has no adequate remedy by appeal. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 8(a).¹ We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24 (2003).

I.

¶ 4 The sole issue before us is whether a prior felony conviction that falls outside the definition of a "historical prior felony conviction" in A.R.S. § 13-604(V) may nonetheless be used for sentence enhancement under § 13-702.02. We review decisions involving statutory construction de novo. State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64, 66 ¶ 6, 66 P.3d 1241, 1243 (2003). In such cases "we begin with the text of the statute. This is so because the best and most reliable index of a statute's meaning is the plain text of the statute." Id.

II.

¶ 5 Section 13-702.02(A) provides:

A person who is convicted of two or more felony offenses that were not committed on the same occasion but that either are consolidated for trial purposes or are not historical prior felony convictions as defined in section 13-604 shall be sentenced, for the second or subsequent offense, pursuant to this section.

¶ 6 Under this subsection, two distinct types of felony convictions trigger the sentencing enhancement provisions of § 13-702.02: (1) those that "were not committed on the same occasion" but "are consolidated for trial purposes" and (2) those that "were not committed on the same occasion" and "are not historical prior felony convictions as defined in section 13-604." See State v. Thompson, 200 Ariz. 439, 441 ¶ 9, 27 P.3d 796, 798 (2001).

¶ 7 This case does not involve offenses consolidated for trial purposes. Therefore, the only question is whether the alleged prior felony offenses "are not historical prior felony convictions as defined in section 13-604."

¶ 8 Section 13-604 provides enhanced sentences for defendants who are convicted of a felony and have a "historical prior felony conviction." As we have previously explained, whether a prior felony conviction falls within the definition of "historical prior felony conviction" in § 13-604(V) generally depends on the seriousness and age of the prior offense. See Christian, 205 Ariz. at 66-67 ¶¶ 7-8, 66 P.3d at 1243-44. At issue in this case is § 13-604(V)(2)(c), which defines "historical prior felony conviction" in relevant part as "[a]ny class 4, 5 or 6 felony ... that was committed within the five years immediately preceding the date of the present offense."

¶ 9 The amended indictment alleges two prior convictions for class six felonies; each prior offense was committed more than five years preceding the date of the offense alleged in this case. Thus, Dancy's two prior felony convictions "are not historical prior felony convictions as defined in section 13-604." See Thompson, 200 Ariz. at 441 ¶ 9, 27 P.3d at 798 ("[W]hen felonies are tried together, any enhancement must be pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-702.02. Additionally, any prior offense that predates the present offense by more than the period prescribed by A.R.S. § 13-604(V)(1)(b) or (c) [now (V)(2)(b) or (c)] is covered by A.R.S. § 13-702.02."). The plain language of § 13-702.02 thus provides that Dancy can be sentenced, if convicted of the current theft charge, pursuant to that statute.

III.

¶ 10 "When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no need to resort to other methods of statutory interpretation to determine the legislature's intent because its intent is readily discernable from the face of the statute." Christian, 205 Ariz. at 66 ¶ 6, 66 P.3d at 1243. Dancy nonetheless argues that application of the enhancement provisions of § 13-702.02 to his case would be contrary to the legislature's intent and would lead to an absurd result.

A.

¶ 11 Dancy contends that the history of the statutory scheme demonstrates that the legislature did not intend § 13-702.02 to allow sentence enhancement on the basis of offenses falling outside the time limitations of § 13-604(V). To the contrary, the statutory history is quite consistent with the statute's plain language.

¶ 12 Under the version of A.R.S. § 13-604 in effect prior to 1993, a defendant convicted of multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial could be sentenced as a repeat offender. See A.R.S. § 13-604(H) (1989) ("Convictions for two or more offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial purposes, may, at the discretion of the state, be counted as prior convictions for purposes of this section.").

¶ 13 In 1993, the legislature eliminated the "consolidated for trial" provision of § 13-604(H) (and redesignated this subsection as § 13-604(M)), and thus put an end to sentence enhancement under § 13-604 for "prior" convictions occurring at the same trial. 1993 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 255, § 7; see Thompson, 200 Ariz. at 441 ¶ 8, 27 P.3d at 798 (discussing legislative history).² But, instead of allowing a defendant to avoid all sentence enhancement from a "prior" conviction obtained at the same trial as the principal offense, the legislature created a new statute, A.R.S. § 13-702.02, providing for a less punitive range of enhancement when a defendant "is convicted of two or more felony offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial purposes." 1993 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 255, § 12 (codified at A.R.S. § 13-702.02(A) (Supp.1993)); see Thompson, 200 Ariz. at 441 ¶ 9, 27 P.3d at 798 (discussing legislative history).

¶ 14 Dancy argues that the 1993 amendments were intended to do away with sentence enhancement based on prior felony convictions not meeting the definition of "historical prior felony conviction" under what is now § 13-604(V)(2), with the sole exception of felony offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial. That argument accurately describes the state of the law in 1993. But the argument does not satisfactorily explain the 1996 amendment of § 13-702.02.

¶ 15 In 1996, the legislature amended § 13-702.02(A) to provide:

A person who is convicted of two or more felony offenses THAT WERE not committed on the same occasion but THAT EITHER ARE consolidated for trial purposes OR ARE NOT HISTORICAL PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-604 ... shall be sentenced, for the second or subsequent offense, pursuant to this section.

1996 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 123, § 2 (additions noted in capital letters) (codified at A.R.S. § 13-702.02(A) (Supp.1996)).³ Thus, in 1996, § 13-702.02 enhancement was made available not only in cases of felony offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial, but also in cases in which a prior felony conviction fell outside the § 13-604 definition of "historical prior felony conviction."

¶ 16 Dancy nonetheless contends that because § 13-702.02 is entitled "Multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion," the statute is still meant to apply only when a defendant is charged with multiple offenses consolidated for trial. This argument is unavailing. "[H]eadings to sections ... do not constitute part of the law." A.R.S. § 1-212 (2002). Although "where an ambiguity exists the title may be used to aid in the interpretation of the statute," State v. Eagle, 196 Ariz. 188, 190 ¶ 7, 994 P.2d 395, 397 (2000), section 13-702.02 is not ambiguous. Moreover, any alleged inconsistency between the title and text of A.R.S. § 13-702.02 is easily explained. The title completely and accurately described the scope of this statute when it was first enacted. The legislature simply failed to change the title of this statute when it amended the text in 1996. This oversight does not negate the effectiveness of the 1996 amendment. Cf. City of Scottsdale v. Mun. Court, 90 Ariz. 393, 396, 368 P.2d 637, 638 (1962)

(refusing to read title of statute as creating limitation that text of the statute would not support).

¶ 17 Second,...