State v. Regenold, 255 P.3d 1028

Regenold pled guilty to luring a minor for sexual exploitation, based on online chats with a detective posing as a 14-year-old in 2005.
In 2006 the trial court suspended sentence and placed Regenold on lifetime probation; in 2008 it sentenced him to 6.5 years under § 13-604.01(I).
The victim was not an actual minor; the person was a police detective masquerading as a minor under 15.
The issue concerns whether § 13-3554(C) requires an actual under-15 minor for the enhanced sentencing under § 13-604.01(I).
Arizona cases Hazlett and Boynton hold that ‘minor’ refers to an actual child, not a fictitious person, for related sexual-exploitation statutes.
The court vacated Regenold’s sentence and remanded for sentencing consistent with the opinion, rather than § 13-604.01(I).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Regenold’s sentence was illegal under § 13-3554(C).	Regenold argues the victim was not an actual minor, so § 13-604.01(I) cannot apply.	State contends the difference between a real minor and a posed minor does not affect sentencing under the statute.	Yes; sentence illegal under plain language; remanded for appropriate sentencing.

Hazlett v. State, 205 Ariz. 523 (App. 2003) (actual minor required for sentencing provision)
Boynton v. Anderson, 205 Ariz. 45 (App. 2003) (minor must be actual to trigger § 13-604.01)
Coy v. Fields, 200 Ariz. 442 (App. 2001) (illegal sentence void when exceeds authority)
Jackson v. Schneider, 207 Ariz. 325 (App. 2004) (court may vacate illegal probationary term signed in plea)
State v. Korzep, 165 Ariz. 490 (1990) (statutory interpretation prioritizes legislative intent)
State v. Cramer, 192 Ariz. 150 (App. 1998) (statutory language governs unless ambiguity exists)