335 P.3d 555
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Flores was convicted of eight counts of first-degree trafficking in stolen property and one count of theft after a jury trial; seven burglary charges were dismissed/acquitted.
- The charges stemmed from seven home burglaries between May 14 and June 11, 2012, with much of the stolen property pawned the same day and other items found in Flores’s home.
- Flores was sentenced as a repetitive offender under A.R.S. § 13-703(B)(1), after the trial court rejected his Alleyne/Apprendi-based argument that the jury must determine whether offenses were committed on the same occasion.
- The jury found Flores guilty of trafficking offenses according to the indictment, which specified offense dates, victims, and property.
- The trial court sentenced Flores to enhanced terms, holding the offenses were not committed on the same occasion and were not ‘spree offenses.’
- On appeal, Flores contends the jury, not the court, should determine whether the offenses occurred on the same occasion; the State argues the court properly imposed the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether same-occasion determinations must be jury-found. | Flores argues Alleyne/Apprendi require jury finding. | State contends deference to court determinations when not inherent in verdicts. | The court held not contrary; the offenses were not on the same occasion; sentencing affirmed. |
| Whether the Kelly factors support same-occasion or not. | Flores asserts factors favor same-occasion due to continuity. | State contends other factors negate same-occasion finding. | Court found first four Kelly factors absent; not same occasion. |
| Whether the indictment and verdicts inherently establish same-occasion facts. | Flores claims jury verdicts do not reveal same-occasion facts. | State argues inherent incorporation of facts from verdicts. | Indictment facts (dates, victims, property) show not on same occasion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (any fact increasing penalty is an element to be proved to a jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing sentence beyond statutory maximum must be jury-found)
- State v. Kelly, 190 Ariz. 532 (Ariz. 1997) (five Kelly factors for same-occasion analysis; fifth factor not standalone)
- State v. Sheppard, 179 Ariz. 83 (Ariz. 1994) (same-occasion when theft and trafficking on same day with related facts)
- State v. Noble, 152 Ariz. 284 (Ariz. 1987) (continuous/uninterrupted factor with brief time or single objective considerations)
- State v. Derello, 199 Ariz. 435 (Ariz. 2001) (interrelated factors; continuous/uninterrupted conduct considered)
- Rasul v. State, 216 Ariz. 491 (Ariz. App. 2007) (prior arson and conspiracy not independently support same-occasion without other factors)