State v. Schaeffer, 1 CA-CR 24-0400

Kathy Ann Schaeffer was investigated for drug offenses after a confidential informant, working with police to avoid her own prosecution, conducted three controlled drug buys from Schaeffer in 2021.
The controlled purchases involved sales of cocaine and methamphetamine, monitored and corroborated by police officers.
Schaeffer was charged with sale of narcotic and dangerous drugs, and offer to sell or transfer dangerous drugs, with aggravating factors and a prior felony conviction.
She was convicted on all counts, and received consecutive sentences totaling 23 years (5 years for Count 1, 10 years for Count 2, and 8 years for Count 3).
On appeal, Schaeffer challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the lack of jury instructions on lesser-included offenses, the constitutionality and proportionality of her sentence, and the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the Evidence	Recordings insufficient; informant not credible; motion for acquittal denied	Testimonial & circumstantial evidence was sufficient	Sufficient evidence existed; denial of acquittal motion upheld
Jury Instructions on Lesser Offenses	Jury should have been instructed on lesser offenses (simple possession)	Lesser instructions inconsistent with defense’s strategy	No sua sponte requirement; defense theory did not merit lesser-included instructions
Sentence Proportionality (Cruelty)	Sentence for meth was “grossly disproportionate” to cocaine and unconstitutional	Statute reflects rational legislative intent to deter meth	Not grossly disproportionate; legislative classifications upheld
Consecutive Sentences/Discretion	Imposing consecutive sentences for related acts was illegal and excessive	Each drug sale was a separate harm justifying consecutive sentences	No statutory violation; no abuse of discretion; trial court properly exercised judgment

State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (2011) (sets standard for review of sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 (2018) (standard for fundamental error in jury instructions)
State v. Berger, 212 Ariz. 473 (2006) (sets test for cruel and unusual punishment challenges)
State v. Davis, 206 Ariz. 377 (2003) (alignment of state and federal standards for cruel & unusual punishment)
State v. Martinez, 226 Ariz. 221 (2011) (fundamental error for imposing illegal sentences)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (1985) (age as a mitigating factor at sentencing is discretionary)