State v. Russell, 226 Ariz. 416

Russell pled guilty to aggravated assault; sentencing was suspended with a deferred six-month jail term and a three-year intensive probation period.
Probation terms prohibited illegal drug use.
Three months into probation, the court found Russell violated probation by using marijuana and revoked probation.
The trial court held that marijuana use is a felony under § 13-3405(B)(1) and that § 13-917(B) mandated imprisonment upon revocation.
The court relied on § 13-604(A), which provides that a class 6 felony remains a felony for all purposes until the court designates it a misdemeanor after conviction, and Russell had not yet been convicted of the drug offense.
Russell appealed, arguing the court could have designated the marijuana offense as a misdemeanor and imposed further probation instead of prison.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a class 6 felony be designated as a misdemeanor only after conviction?	Russell contends designation as a misdemeanor can occur anytime, overriding revocation consequences.	State argues designation as a misdemeanor occurs only after conviction under § 13-604(A).	Designation as a misdemeanor may occur only after conviction.
Does § 13-917(B) require imprisonment upon probation revocation for an additional felony offense?	If the drug offense could be treated as a misdemeanor, probation could be extended rather than imprisonment.	A.R.S. § 13-917(B) mandates imprisonment when a probation revocation shows an additional felony.	Yes; § 13-917(B) requires imprisonment.
Did the lack of a drug conviction at revocation affect the applicability of § 13-917(B) over § 13-604(A)?	Until conviction, the marijuana offense should not force prison as a result of revocation.	The offense is a felony under statutory definitions, mandating prison regardless of conviction status at revocation.	§ 13-917(B) applied; prison term was proper.

State v. Barnett, 209 Ariz. 352, 101 P.3d 646 (App. 2004) (statutory construction presumes clear language; de novo review of interpretation)
State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247, 34 P.3d 356 (2001) (statutory interpretation standard and related principles)
State v. Arana, 173 Ariz. 370, 843 P.2d 652 (1992) (classification and designation of felonies as misdemeanors after conviction)
State v. Arbolida, 206 Ariz. 306, 78 P.3d 275 (App. 2003) (distinguishes historical context of designation after conviction)
State v. Taylor, 187 Ariz. 567, 931 P.2d 1077 (App. 1996) (probation violation involving controlled substances and revocation consequences)