State of Arizona v. Austin James Bonfiglio, 295 P.3d 948

Bonfiglio was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault, a class 3 dangerous felony.
The jury found an aggravating factor: the defendant had the ability to walk away but did not.
Prior to sentencing, Bonfiglio admitted two prior felony convictions (D11).
The court acknowledged the priors and that Bonfiglio was on probation at the time of the offense.
The court sentenced Bonfiglio to 13 years, within the aggravated range, based on a repetitive-offender framework plus a catch-all factor.
Bonfiglio appealed arguing the use of the catch-all aggravator was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May the trial court rely on a catch-all aggravator when an enumerated factor is found?	Bonfiglio argues catch-all alone is improper.	State contends catch-all allowed when enumerated factors exist and justify aggravated sentence.	Yes; catch-all permitted with enumerated factor found.

State v. Schmidt, 220 Ariz. 563 (Ariz. 2009) (catch-all aggravator violates due process if sole basis; allowed when accompanied by enumerated factors)
State v. Carreon, 211 Ariz. 32 (Ariz. 2005) (finding of historical priors can expose defendant to aggravated sentence)
State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578 (Ariz. 2005) (single aggravating factor suffices to expose to aggravated sentence)
State v. Ritacca, 169 Ariz. 401 (Ariz. 1991) (prior convictions may be used to enhance and aggravate sentence)
State v. Harrison, 195 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 1999) (requires on-record articulation of aggravating/mitigating factors; no formal litany required)
State v. Zinsmeyer, 222 Ariz. 612 (Ariz. 2009) (vacated aggravated sentence when only catch-all was used; inconsistent with later rule)