State v. Johnson, 240 Ariz. 402

Background

Defendant Elias Dewayne Johnson was convicted by a jury of third-degree burglary (class 4 felony) for removing a bait bike from a city truck on April 23, 2014.
At sentencing the State proved Johnson had six prior Colorado felony convictions spanning 1989–2002.
The superior court sentenced Johnson as a category three repetitive offender under A.R.S. § 13-703(C) to an eight-year prison term.
Johnson appealed, arguing his Colorado convictions were not "historical prior felony convictions" because they fell outside the five-year window in A.R.S. § 13-105(22)(e).
The issue turned on statutory interpretation of the interplay between § 13-703 (including its 2012 amendment addressing out-of-state convictions) and the definitions in § 13-105(22).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson’s out-of-state felonies qualify as "historical prior felony convictions" for § 13-703(C) enhancement	State: 2012 amendments to § 13-703(M) allow counting out-of-state felonies; chronological counting applies so Johnson has two+ historical priors	Johnson: § 13-105(22)(e) imposes a five-year lookback for out-of-state felonies, so his Colorado convictions (older than five years) cannot be used	Court held the Colorado convictions qualify under § 13-105(22)(d) as "third or more prior felony convictions" given § 13-703(M); enhancement proper
Whether the 2012 addition of § 13-105(22)(e) precludes use of older out-of-state convictions	State: (implicit) § 13-105(22)(e) applies to some out-of-state felonies but does not narrow § 13-105(22)(d)	Johnson: (express) subsection (e) creates a five-year limit controlling out-of-state priors	Court held (1) context and the specific statute § 13-703(M) control; (2) § 13-105(22)(d) still permits counting older out-of-state convictions as third-or-more priors
Whether courts must use a comparative-elements test for foreign convictions after 2012	State: 2012 amendments abandoned comparative-elements approach for most foreign felonies	Johnson: argued ambiguity existed before 2015 clarification	Court held legislature intended to simplify treatment of foreign felonies in 2012; 2015 amendment merely clarified scope, not original intent
Whether any fundamental sentencing error occurred	Johnson: sentencing as category three was fundamentally erroneous	State: sentencing consistent with statutory scheme and precedent	Court held no fundamental error; affirmed conviction and sentence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Peek, 219 Ariz. 182 (App. 2008) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Hansen, 215 Ariz. 287 (App. 2007) (clear statutory language is determinative)
State v. Berger, 212 Ariz. 473 (App. 2006) (deference to legislative policy in sentencing statutes)
State v. Moran, 232 Ariz. 528 (App. 2013) (2012 amendments allow considering out-of-state felonies for sentencing)
State v. Garcia, 189 Ariz. 510 (App. 1997) (once convicted of three felonies, the third in time may enhance a later sentence regardless of passage of time)
State v. Decenzo, 199 Ariz. 355 (App. 2001) (chronological counting of prior felonies for enhancement)
State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339 (App. 2002) (specific statute can alter general definitions; context may require different definitional application)
State v. Crawford, 214 Ariz. 129 (App. 2007) (pre-2012 comparative-elements approach to foreign convictions)
State v. Ault, 157 Ariz. 516 (App. 1988) (comparative-elements analysis for foreign convictions)
State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64 (App. 2003) (third-or-more prior conviction must be third in chronological order)
Ford v. State, 194 Ariz. 197 (App. 1999) (specific statute controls over general when conflict exists)
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 99 Ariz. 130 (1965) (courts should not read into statute meanings contrary to legislative intent)
Arizona Board of Regents v. State, 160 Ariz. 150 (App. 1989) (subsequent clarifying legislation often indicates original legislative intent)