Rasmussen v. Munger, 260 P.3d 296

Rasmussen pled guilty to two counts of arson of an occupied structure.
The trial judge suspended imposition of sentence and imposed consecutive seven-year probation terms.
As a condition of probation, Rasmussen was also ordered to serve two consecutive one-year jail terms.
After completing the first jail term, Rasmussen moved for release arguing the jail terms could not exceed one year in total or could not be served consecutively within probation.
The respondent denied relief, relying on § 13-901(F) and State v. Richardson, and the case proceeded via petition for special action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 13-901(F) allows consecutive jail terms within probation periods.	Rasmussen: period of probation merges across offenses; total jail term limited to one year.	State: period of probation is per offense; consecutive terms permissible within separate probation periods.	Consecutive jail terms must be served within each respective probation period; Rasmussen must be released for the second term.

Richardson, 172 Ariz. 43, 833 P.2d 714 (App. 1992) (consecutive jail terms within concurrent probation terms allowed; no merging of periods)
State v. Bowsher, 225 Ariz. 586, 242 P.3d 1058 (Supreme Ct. 2010) (consecutive probation terms permitted since at least 1978)
State v. Leonardo, 226 Ariz. 593, 250 P.3d 1222 (2011) (statutory interpretation de novo; legislature’s intent governs)
State v. Getz, 189 Ariz. 561, 944 P.2d 503 (App. 1997) (ambiguous language requires contextual analysis)
Scappaticci v. Southwestern Savings & Loan Ass'n, 135 Ariz. 456, 662 P.2d 131 (1983) (avoid absurd results; legislative intent governs)
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc., 215 Ariz. 237, 34 P.3d 907 (App. 2001) (absurdity standard in statutory construction remains applicable)