State v. Piotrowski
233 Ariz. 595
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Piotrowski was convicted in 2012 of aggravated assault (class 2) and possession of dangerous drugs (class 4).
- At the time, he was on probation for two prior cases (2008 convictions).
- The trial court imposed concurrent, presumptive prison terms for the 2012 convictions and revoked probation for the 2008 convictions, ordering concurrent terms.
- The State moved to reconsider under Rule 24.3, arguing § 13-708(C) required consecutive terms.
- The court resentenced to consecutive terms over Defendant’s objection, and Defendant appealed.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals analyzed whether § 13-708(C) or § 13-901(C) governs probation revocation and consecutive sentencing here, and held § 13-708(C) applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probation revocation for 2008 convictions was mandatory under § 13-708(C). | Piotrowski argued § 13-901(C) governs, giving discretion on probation. | Piotrowski argued § 13-708(C) governs when on felony probation and new felony is involved. | § 13-708(C) controls; probation revocation mandatory. |
| Whether § 13-708(C) mandated consecutive sentences for the 2012 and 2008 convictions. | State argued mandatory consecutiveness under § 13-708(C). | Piotrowski argued the term 'release' does not include probation in § 13-708(C). | § 13-708(C) requires consecutive sentences for the two convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Botkin, 221 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2009) (interprets § 13-708(C) requires imprisonment when probationer commits a new felony)
- State v. Barksdale, 143 Ariz. 465 (App. 1984) (consecutive sentencing requirement for probation violations with new felony)
- Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 207 Ariz. 553 (App. 2004) (statutory language and use of 'or' in release contexts)