State v. Ceasar
241 Ariz. 66
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Marcus Dean Ceasar was convicted of stalking, aggravated assault, and two counts of disorderly conduct after a 2015 incident; a prior disorderly conduct conviction (Nov. 2014) was found.
- The superior court treated the two subsequent disorderly conduct convictions as felonies (class 6) and sentenced Ceasar as a category three repetitive offender, imposing concurrent prison terms.
- Ceasar also had two Florida withheld-adjudication (no contest) dispositions for resisting an officer with violence, which the court treated as prior felony convictions for enhancement.
- Ceasar appealed, arguing (1) the disorderly conduct convictions were misclassified and (2) Florida withheld adjudications do not qualify as historical prior felony convictions.
- The State conceded misclassification of the disorderly conduct convictions; the court nonetheless reviewed the statutory interpretation issues and Ceasar’s challenge to use of the Florida dispositions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper classification/sentence for repetitive misdemeanors under A.R.S. § 13-707(B) | Ceasar: Disorderly conduct should remain misdemeanors; sentencing as felony/category three was error | State: (conceded) convictions should be misdemeanors but district court had sentenced under felony enhancements | Court: Repetitive class 1 misdemeanors remain class 1 misdemeanors, but § 13-707(B) authorizes felony-range punishment (class 6 felony range); therefore reclassify convictions as misdemeanors and remand for resentencing within class 6 felony range for enhanced misdemeanor punishment |
| Whether enhanced misdemeanor sentence converts offense classification to felony | Ceasar: Enhanced punishment transforms misdemeanor into felony for classification/sentencing scheme | State: Conceded misclassification; argued enhancement authorized imprisonment without reclassification | Court: Statutory text controls—§ 13-707(B) keeps offense a misdemeanor while authorizing higher (felony-range) punishment; classification remains misdemeanor despite prison exposure |
| Applicability of general felony definition (A.R.S. § 13-105(18)) | Ceasar: A felony is an offense punishable by ADC custody, so imprisonment authorized by § 13-707(B) should make it a felony | State: Enhancement statute is a specific context that controls over general definition | Held: Specific language in § 13-707(B) and statutory scheme requires treating the offense as a misdemeanor for classification purposes despite felony-range sentencing; specific statute controls over general definition |
| Whether Florida withheld adjudications count as historical prior felony convictions | Ceasar: Withheld adjudication/no contest means no conviction and cannot be used for enhancement | State: Florida law treats withheld adjudications as convictions for sentencing purposes | Held: Under Florida law a no-contest plea with adjudication withheld is a conviction for sentencing; superior court properly counted them as historical prior felony convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 115 P.3d 601 (2005) (standard for fundamental, prejudicial error review)
- State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 54 P.3d 368 (App. 2002) (statutory definitions apply unless context requires otherwise)
- State ex rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 136 Ariz. 589, 667 P.2d 1304 (1983) (observation that only felonies and class 1 second-offense misdemeanors carry imprisonment over one year)
- State v. Ray, 209 Ariz. 429, 104 P.3d 160 (App. 2004) (specific statute controls when general and specific conflict)
- State v. Decker, 239 Ariz. 29, 365 P.3d 954 (App. 2016) (de novo review for whether out-of-state felony supports enhancement)
- State v. Inzunza, 234 Ariz. 78, 316 P.3d 1266 (App. 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Montgomery v. State, 897 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 2005) (Florida withheld adjudication is a conviction for sentencing purposes)