State of Arizona v. Demitres Robertson, 468 P.3d 1217

Background

In 2002 Robertson was charged with first-degree murder and two counts of intentional child abuse; she pleaded guilty under a negotiated plea to manslaughter and reckless child abuse.
The plea stipulated a manslaughter term of 8–15 years and a consecutive sentence of lifetime probation for the child-abuse count; probation terms allowed unspecified prison exposure upon violation.
Robertson served the prison term, later violated probation multiple times, and at a revocation hearing argued for the first time that both convictions arose from a single act and that A.R.S. § 13-116 required concurrent sentences.
The trial court revoked probation and ordered imprisonment (presumptive 3.5 years with credit). Robertson appealed.
The court of appeals declined to reach the § 13-116 merit issue, ruling Robertson was precluded from appellate review under the invited error doctrine because she had stipulated to consecutive sentences in the plea agreement.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review, held that the invited error doctrine cannot bar review of an allegedly illegal sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, vacated the court of appeals’ holding, and remanded for merits consideration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May invited-error preclude appellate review of an allegedly illegal stipulated sentence?	Invited error applies because Robertson agreed to consecutive sentences in the plea.	Invited error cannot bar review of an illegal sentence imposed after probation revocation.	Invited error may not be used to prevent review of a potentially illegal sentence; court must address legality.
Does State v. Regenold permit appeal of a sentence imposed after a contested probation revocation despite a plea?	The State: Regenold is distinguishable because Robertson negotiated a favorable stipulated outcome.	Robertson: Regenold controls—sentence after contested revocation is a consequence of the violation, not a plea sentence.	Regenold is materially indistinguishable and supports appellate review of sentences imposed after contested probation revocations.
When does the invited-error doctrine apply to plea stipulations?	The State: a negotiated stipulation waives challenge; source of stipulation is irrelevant.	Robertson: Doctrine applies only if the appellant was the source or affirmatively defended/initiated the error—mere acquiescence insufficient.	Invited error applies only when the party urging error initiated or actively defended it; mere stipulation/acquiescence is insufficient.
Can a plea agreement authorize an illegal sentence so as to bar correction on appeal?	(As argued by COA) A plea stipulation should be enforced as bargained.	Robertson: Statute and precedent prohibit enforcement of illegal sentences even if included in a plea.	Illegal sentences cannot be enforced simply because they were stipulated; statutory and case law require correction of illegal sentences.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Regenold, 226 Ariz. 378 (2011) (a defendant who contests a probation violation may appeal the sentence imposed after revocation because it is a consequence of the violation, not a plea sentence)
State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564 (2001) (invited-error analysis requires identifying the source of the error as the party urging it)
State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 (2018) (counsels caution in applying invited error; doctrine applies when defense counsel was source of error)
State v. Lucero, 223 Ariz. 129 (App. 2009) (invited error requires affirmative invitation, not passive acquiescence)
State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391 (2013) (defendant’s stipulation to admit evidence precluded an appeal on that ground, but Court’s discussion did not resolve invited-error sourcing questions)
Coy v. Fields, 200 Ariz. 442 (App. 2001) (a defendant may challenge an illegal sentence even if the plea agreement authorized it)
State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock, 237 Ariz. 125 (2015) (the state cannot authorize an illegal plea term and courts cannot enforce provisions prohibited by law)
Chaparro v. Shinn, 248 Ariz. 138 (2020) (distinguishable: Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence absent a state appeal)