Summary
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, accepted special-action jurisdiction but denied relief in the State’s challenge to a superior court order setting a jury trial on whether offenses underlying Robert Blackwell’s prior felony convictions were committed on the same occasion. The court held that when resolving the same-occasion inquiry requires facts beyond the mere existence and elements of prior convictions, the defendant is constitutionally entitled to a unanimous jury determination beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also declined to disregard Arizona Supreme Court precedent requiring consideration of the Kelly factors and rejected the State’s argument that prior guilty pleas waive the jury right.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals should accept special-action jurisdiction over the State’s challenge to the superior court’s decision to submit the same-occasion inquiry to a jury.
- Whether a judge may determine, rather than a jury, whether offenses underlying prior felony convictions were committed on separate occasions for purposes of enhanced sentencing under A.R.S. § 13-703(L).
- Whether the same-occasion inquiry may be resolved from objective judicial records without applying the factors identified in State v. Kelly.
- Whether prior guilty pleas constitute concessions that the underlying offenses occurred on separate occasions.
Holdings
- The Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction because the superior court designated the issue for review, the issue was one of first impression with statewide importance, and the State lacked an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal.
- When the State seeks to establish that prior offenses were committed on separate occasions for purposes of enhanced sentencing and must rely on evidence beyond the mere fact of the prior convictions, the defendant is entitled to have a jury determine the issue unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The same-occasion inquiry must apply the factors identified in State v. Kelly; the Court of Appeals could not disregard or modify that Arizona Supreme Court precedent.
- A guilty plea in a prior proceeding is not a concession that the convictions resulting from that plea occurred on separate occasions for purposes of a later sentencing proceeding.
Key quotations
“Thus, if the State seeks to prove that certain offenses were not committed on the same occasion and relies on evidence that goes beyond the mere existence of the prior convictions, the State must prove its case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” (at 2)
“There is no efficiency exception to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.” (at 7)
“A guilty plea in a prior proceeding is not a concession that the convictions resulting from the guilty plea in an unrelated subsequent case occurred on separate occasions.” (at 9)
Factual background
The State alleged that Blackwell had 11 historical felony convictions for purposes of enhanced sentencing after his convictions for two counts of aggravated driving under the influence. The offenses underlying the prior convictions occurred in 1980, 1996, 1997, 2004, and 2017. The State sought to have a judge, rather than a jury, determine whether at least three prior felony convictions arose from separate occasions and therefore supported classification as a category-three repetitive offender.
Procedural history
Before Blackwell’s trial on aggravated driving under the influence, the State alleged 11 historical felony convictions. After Blackwell was convicted and apprehended following his absconding, the superior court set a jury trial to determine the effect of the prior convictions on sentencing. The superior court denied the State’s motion to vacate that jury trial, designated the issue for special-action review, and stayed sentencing. The Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction but denied relief.