State v. Meeks, 1 CA-CR 16-0121

On October 16, 2014, Jason Meeks robbed a buyer (M.S.) of cash, two cell phones, a wallet, shoes, and about $6,000 at knife-point; an accomplice was present.
A jury convicted Meeks of one count of armed robbery (a class 2 dangerous felony) and found three aggravators: use of a deadly weapon, presence of an accomplice, and that the offense was committed while on community supervision.
At sentencing the superior court found Meeks had five prior felony convictions (four non-dangerous, one class 4 dangerous) and classified him as a "dangerous, repetitive offender" under A.R.S. § 13-704.
The court treated the presumptive term as 15.75 years (offense committed while on community supervision) and imposed a slightly aggravated 17-year prison term after weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.
Meeks appealed, arguing (1) the court improperly relied on the use of a deadly weapon as an aggravator when that element is essential to armed robbery, and (2) the court erred in classifying him as a dangerous, repetitive offender under § 13-704(D).
The State conceded the weapon aggravator was improperly considered; the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the dangerous‑repetitive classification was unsupported and its consideration, together with the improper aggravator, rendered the sentence illegal and prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Meeks)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the superior court may consider use of a deadly weapon as an aggravating factor when sentencing for armed robbery	Court erred: weapon use is an essential element of armed robbery and cannot be an aggravator	State conceded the court erred in considering the weapon as an aggravating factor	Error: weapon aggravator was improperly considered (State conceded); contributes to illegal sentence
Whether Meeks could be sentenced as a "dangerous, repetitive offender" under A.R.S. § 13-704(D)	Court erred: Meeks lacked the required prior class 1–3 dangerous felony to qualify under § 13-704(D)	State argued classification was proper or that remaining factors support sentence (implicit)	Held error: Meeks did not have the required prior dangerous felony; classification was improper, rendering the sentence illegal and prejudicial—vacatur and remand for resentencing

State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (standard for reviewing unpreserved claims as fundamental error)
State v. Ojeda, 159 Ariz. 560 (1989) (affirm sentence only if record clearly shows same result absent improper aggravating factor)
State v. Carbajal, 184 Ariz. 117 (App. 1995) (failure to impose sentence per mandatory statutes makes sentence illegal)
State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339 (App. 2002) (imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error)
State v. Alvarez, 205 Ariz. 110 (App. 2003) (when unclear whether judge would have imposed same sentence absent inappropriate factor, remand for resentencing is required)