State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasic, 228 Ariz. 228

Kasic, Jr. was convicted by jury of 32 felonies arising from six arsons and one attempted arson during Aug 2007–Aug 2008, with several acts committed while he was a juvenile; the total sentence for both juvenile and adult conduct was 139.75 years, largely consecutive with some concurrent terms.
The offenses included arson of occupied structures, endangerment, aggravated assault, criminal damage, and arson of property valued over $100; several arsons occurred when residents were inside asleep, causing substantial property damage and some injuries.
Kasic was juvenile at the time of four arsons; after turning 18 he was charged as an adult in a 40-count indictment; the verdicts included multiple dangerous-nature findings and varied sentence lengths.
The trial court imposed enhanced, mixed concurrent/consecutive sentences; the State appealed and Kasic challenged the Eighth Amendment proportionality under Graham v. Florida, and challenged two arson-of-property convictions for lack of evidence of property value.
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed most convictions and sentences, but vacated counts 37 and 38 (arson of property) for lack of evidence that the trees constituted property with value over $100, and remanded for resentencing on those counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentences violate the Eighth Amendment under Graham	Kasic argues the term-of-years sentences are grossly disproportionate for juvenile offenders.	Kasic contends Graham bars such punishment for juveniles in nonhomicide offenses.	No categorical bar; sentences not grossly disproportionate considering circumstances.
Whether Graham extends to multiple counts and consecutive terms	Graham’s logic applies to all juvenile offenders with lengthy term-of-years.	Graham limited to life-without-parole for nonhomicide offenses, not multi-count term-of-years.	Graham does not compel extension; proportionality analyzed per individual counts and aggregate result.
Whether arson of property counts 37–38 were supported by substantial evidence of value	Palm trees were property with value; jurors could infer value.	No evidence establishes each tree’s value above $100; insufficient value to sustain the arson-of-property counts.	Insufficient evidence of value; vacate counts 37–38 and remand for resentencing as arson of property < $100 (class 1 misdemeanor).
Remedy and impact on sentences for counts 37–38	Counts 37–38 should stand given substantial evidence of arson-related conduct.	Counts fail due to value issue; cannot sustain arson-of-property convictions.	Modify disposition to reflect arson of property < $100 (class 1 misdemeanor) for counts 37–38; remand for resentencing on those counts.

Graham v. Florida, U.S. , 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010) (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (categorical juvenile protection in nonhomicide life-without-parole context; not extended to all term-of-years here)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (juvenile status and maturity considerations informing culpability)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (categorical exclusion for intellectually disabled in capital sentencing contexts)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (discussion of proportionality standards for punishment; life-without-parole as comparative benchmark)
State v. Berger, 212 Ariz. 473, 134 P.3d 378 (2006) (Arizona Supreme Court 2006) (structure for proportionality review for consecutive sentences; focus on individual offenses)