*1 478 convictions) prior (class exploitation. years
the six counts of sexual to to 14 5.25 convictions). felony upon photographs prior These counts were based II with no See 13-604(D), 13-702(B). daughter ap- of taken 13-701 the when she was and years proximately age. The fourteen of We therefore affirm the but convictions they as depicted found sexual conduct the the vacate sentences and remand sexu- 13-3551(2)(f) defined in A.R.S. in viola- exploitation al to convictions the trial court tion 13-3553. Evidence at the resentencing of A.R.S. for in this conformance with in opinion. trial indicated that the furniture shown supplemental that photographs the was defendant’s and photography
the site of the was defend- pictures found in a
ant’s home. were in compartment
locked defendant’s home. anyone had
There is no evidence that else photographs. the ex-
taken the Because
ploitation
ques-
the
counts do not turn on
credibility
supported
tion
and are
of
and and HAYS
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION petitioned this court 31.18, to Rule pursuant
reconsideration
Ariz.R.Crim.P., A.R.S., claiming as that holding longer no
a result of our there was jury’s to the
sufficient evidence sustain guilt the
determination defendant’s on thor exploitation
sexual counts. We have no
oughly reviewed the record and find
merit in this assertion and have denied for reconsideration.
motion reviewing it the record apparent that the sentences for
became a exploitation of minor
six counts of sexual imposing 21-year In be
must reduced. six counts of for each
sentences minor, of a exploitation
sexual guilty verdicts for
court treated the prior convictions.
two counts as two incest 13-604(D). re Because we
See A.R.S. § convictions, are no incest there versed the sentencing range
priors has from exploitation been reduced
sexual (class felony two II to *2 Corbin, Gen., Atty.
Robert K. William J. III, Schafer, Counsel, Div., Chief Crim. Jarrett, Gen., Barbara M. Atty. Asst. Phoe- nix, appellee. Lockwood, Jr., Prescott,
Chester R. for . appellant.
GORDON, Vice Chief Justice. single The issue for review in this case is disorderly conduct, whether A.R.S. 13- § 2904(A)(6)constitutes a lesser included of aggravated assault, fense of A.R.S. 13- § 1204(A)(2). jurisdiction pursuant We have 5(3) to Ariz. Const. art. 6 and Ariz.R. Crim.P. 31.19.
Defendant, Angle, was charged aggravated with three counts of assault while armed with a deadly weapon 13-1203(A)(2), in violation of A.R.S. 13- 1204(A)(2). gave jury The trial court in- aggravated structions on assault and at- tempted aggravated assault. requested
trial court refused defendant’s disorderly instruction on conduct reck- display less of a firearm in violation of 13-1204(A)(6). convicted defendant attempted ag- of three counts of gravated assault and he was sentenced to presumptive concurrent terms of six imprisonment. appealed his conviction appeals and the sentence court of af Angle,
firmed. 149 Ariz. State v. (1985). adopt dissenting We opinion Judge Kleinschmidt and vacate majority opinion as to this issue. We agree majority the result as to all other issues.
Remanded new trial. FELDMAN, JJ.,
CAMERON and HOLOHAN, Justice, dissenting. Chief ruling Since court and opinion majority of the of the Court of correct, Appeals appears I to me to be judgment superior affirm the would Therefore, posi- court. I dissent from the majority.
tion of the
HAYS, Justice.
I concur Chief Justice Holohan’s dis-
sent. LOUNGE,
DANCING SUNSHINES Employer,
Petitioner Fund, Compensation
State Carrier,
Petitioner
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF
ARIZONA, Respondent, Johns,
Shelley Respondent R.
Employee.
No. 18412-PR.
In Banc. 4, 1986.
June July Denied
Reconsideration