State v. Large, 234 Ariz. 274

Large was convicted in Arizona of armed robbery and sentenced to a flat-time presumptive term of 10.5 years under ARS 13-708(A) because he was on parole for a Tennessee felony at the time of the offense.
A Tennessee parole officer testified Large was on parole for facilitation of especially aggravated robbery at the time of the crime and at sentencing; a Tennessee judgment was admitted.
Two eyewitnesses testified Large approached the victim with a knife, demanded money, and fled with the victim’s cell phone after the victim dropped it; the victim stated he would have retrieved the phone if not for the knife.
Large challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence on the coexistence of intent to commit robbery and use of force, (2) whether a jury must determine parole status under Alleyne/Apprendi because it affects the sentence, and (3) whether the trial court erred by applying 13-708(A) without proving the Tennessee offense has an Arizona analog.
The court affirmed Large’s conviction and sentence, addressing Alleyne’s implications and the analog requirement, and applied harmless-error analysis to conclude reversal was not warranted.
The opinion discusses Crawford/Clough lineage for determining how foreign convictions trigger sentencing enhancements and notes the 2012 amendments to §13-703 while distinguishing §13-708(A).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence that the intent to steal coexisted with use of force	Large argues lack of evidence linking intent and force	Large maintains no contemporaneous threat/force to take the phone	Sufficient evidence supported coexistence of intent and force
Whether Alleyne/Apprendi require a jury to determine parole status at offense time	Alleyne extends Apprendi to release status increasing minimum	No jury finding required prior to 13-708(A) enhancement	Alleyne applies; error harmless, no reversal required
Whether 13-708(A) requires Arizona analog for foreign offense before applying enhancement	State must show foreign offense has Arizona analog	Analog determination unnecessary or waived	Arizona analog required; Tennessee offense is analogous to Arizona armed robbery; no error
Whether the court properly applied Crawford/Clough analysis to foreign conviction	Court should compare elements to Arizona offenses	12-708(A) relies on foreign status without detailed analysis	Court’s analysis appropriate; no error in determining analog
Whether any error was fundamental or harmless given post-conviction developments	Error would be fundamental due to new Alleyne rule	Error non-fundamental; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Harmless error; no reversal or remand

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (extends Apprendi to mandatory minimum enhancements)
State v. Flores, 201 Ariz. 239, 33 P.3d 1177 (App. 2001) (App. 2001) (held 13-708(A) increases minimum, not maximum; Apprendi not triggered)
State v. Gross, 201 Ariz. 41, 31 P.3d 815 (App. 2001) (App. 2001) (Apprendi applies to release status when it increases a sentence beyond maximum)
State v. Crawford, 214 Ariz. 129, 149 P.3d 753 (2007) (Supreme Ct. 2007) ( Crawford analysis for foreign-conviction-based enhancements)
State v. Clough, 171 Ariz. 217, 829 P.2d 1263 (App. 1992) (App. 1992) (applies Crawford-type analysis to foreign-conviction releases)
State v. Moran, 232 Ariz. 528, 307 P.3d 95 (App. 2013) (App. 2013) (acknowledges amendments to 13-703; Crawford still relevant to analog testing)
Weible, Weible, 142 Ariz. 113, 688 P.2d 1005 (1984) (Supreme Ct. 1984) (definition of whether prior conviction would be Arizona felony)