State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez
230 Ariz. 223
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- State petitions for special-action review after a judge dismissed the probation-ineligibility allegation under Prop. 200.
- Lopez was indicted for narcotic possession and drug paraphernalia; State alleges he is ineligible for probation due to a prior violent crime.
- Lopez moved to dismiss, arguing Joyner’s elements-only approach governs whether a prior conviction is a violent crime.
- State argued Lopez’s prior aggravated assault on a peace officer was a class five felony, making the offense violent and admissible for Prop. 200 purposes.
- Trial court struck the State’s allegation; Lopez was deemed eligible for Prop. 200 probation under Joyner.
- Arizona Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction and granted relief, concluding Lopez’s prior conviction is a violent crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior aggravated assault on a peace officer is a violent crime for Prop. 200 eligibility | Lopez: violence determination limited to elements per Joyner | State: 13-1204(C) makes injury an element; thus violent crime | Lopez is not eligible for probation; prior offense is a violent crime |
| Whether § 13-1204(C) must be treated as an element or a sentencing factor for § 13-901.01 | Joyner limits consideration to elements only | § 13-1204(C) elevates offense; constitutes an element or its functional equivalent | Physical injury is an element or its functional equivalent; the offense is violent |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Joyner, 215 Ariz. 134 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (elements-based violent-crime determination; protects due process)
- State v. Ortega, 220 Ariz. 320 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008) (distinguishes elements vs. sentencing factors; guides element analysis)
- Robbins v. Darrow, 214 Ariz. 91 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006) (prior conviction used for classification/sentencing; not an element when statute so states)
- State v. Schmidt, 220 Ariz. 563 (Ariz. 2009) (aggravating factors may function as elements for purposes of enhanced penalties)
- State ex rel. Romley v. Martin, 203 Ariz. 46 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (special-action jurisdiction; statewide importance for legal questions)
- State ex rel. McDougal v. Crawford, 159 Ariz. 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (procedure for appeal of illegal sentence; relevance to sentencing errors)