Case Title: Ard v. State

Citation: 102 Ariz. 221, 427 P.2d 913

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1967-05-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
102 Ariz. 221 (1967) 427 P.2d 913 Arthur Lee ARD, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Arizona ex rel. the SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY, Respondents. No. H-229. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. May 18, 1967. *222 Arthur Lee Ard, in pro. per. Darrell F. Smith, Atty Gen., James S. Tegart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents. McFARLAND, Justice: Arthur Lee Ard, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus, or in the alternative, a writ of habeas corpus. The Attorney General of Arizona has filed a response and we have elected to treat the petition as one for habeas corpus. As the facts are not in dispute and this case concerns a matter of law which is of some concern to the judiciary of this state, the reasons for our issuance of the writ are set forth in the following opinion. Petitioner appeared before the Pima County Superior Court in February of 1960 and pleaded guilty to the crime of second degree murder. He was represented by counsel. The court found petitioner to be guilty and pronounced sentence as follows: Petitioner contends that a sentence of "natural life" is contrary to the indeterminate sentence provisions of the Arizona Revised Statutes. With this contention we must agree. The applicable statutory provisions are as follows: This is a case of first impression in Arizona. A.R.S. § 13-1644 was adopted *223 from California, and was first codified as section 1049 of the Penal Code of Arizona in 1887. During the time that this section stood alone in our statutes, it is clear that the court could properly impose a determinate or "fixed" sentence to imprisonment for life or a definite number of years in all cases other than first degree murder, where only the minimum term was prescribed. In 1907 our legislature passed the first indeterminate sentence law. Ariz. Sess. Laws 1907, Chap 37. This underwent several changes until 1912, when a mandatory indeterminate sentence law was passed which was declared by this court in La Porte v. State, 14 Ariz. 530, 132 P. 563, to have eliminated the imposition of determinate sentences. In that case we said: In 1913 the indeterminate sentence law was again changed and was enacted into the Penal Code in substantially the same form as it appears today. Ariz.Pen.Code 1913, § 1127; A.R.S. § 13-1643, supra. In a separate part of the Penal Code, the predecessor to A.R.S. § 13-1644 was reenacted. Ariz. Penal Code, 1913, § 742. Both sections have remained in the statutes from that time until the present day. In determining the effect of A.R.S. § 13-1644, which was first enacted prior to A.R.S. § 13-1643, we must consider the intent and purpose of the legislature. This intent and purpose can be found in the wording of the statute itself. It merely fixed a maximum sentence which could be imposed where only the minimum sentence was specified, so thereafter in case of a felony such as murder in the second degree, which provided for a punishment of not less than ten years, the maximum could be life imprisonment. A court could, before the enactment of the indeterminate sentence law, sentence a defendant to any term of years between ten and his natural life. In other words § 13-1644 merely makes it plain that where a minimum sentence is specified and no maximum is named, the maximum may be for not only a definite number of years, but may also be for his natural life. When the Legislature passed the indeterminate sentence law there was no conflict with the statutes providing for a minimum sentence, because § 13-1644 specified the maximum. This is made plain by the 1912 statute, Ariz. Sess. Laws 1912, Chap. 46, which provides in part: It will be noted from the language of the statute that the Legislature, in passing an indeterminate sentence law at that time, had no intention of changing the statutory minimum or maximum sentence. In like manner § 1127 of the 1913 Penal Code (A.R.S. § 13-1643) in no way changed the statutory maximum and minimum sentence that could be imposed. It merely eliminated *224 that portion which made the passing of the statutory minimum and maximum sentence mandatory and left the minimum and maximum to be imposed up to the discretion of the court, so long as it is within the statutory limits. Keeping the legislative history of these statutes in mind, we turn to the question of whether A.R.S. § 13-1644, supra, is authority for imposition of a life sentence, when read in the light of the indeterminate sentence statute, A.R.S. § 13-1643, subsection A., supra. A life sentence is a fixed or determinate sentence, and in absence of statutory authority is improper in jurisdictions having a mandatory indeterminate sentence law. People v. Westbrook, 411 Ill. 301, 103 N.E.2d 494, 29 A.L.R.2d 1341. Indeterminate sentence statutes are generally held to be mandatory, except where the statute expressly provides for discretion. Pleasant v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 154, 128 S.W.2d 813; State v. Cristensen, 166 Kan. 152, 199 P.2d 475; Abt v. Walker, 126 Conn. 218, 10 A.2d 596; Williams v. State, 233 Ind. 327, 119 N.E.2d 547; In re Smith, 162 Ohio St. 58, 120 N.E.2d 736; Greenough v. State, 136 Neb. 20, 284 N.W. 740, (Statute provides for discretion). In two cases, this court has stated that the trial court should fix both a minimum and a maximum term of imprisonment. Indian Fred v. State, 36 Ariz. 48, 282 P. 930; State v. Myers, 59 Ariz. 200, 125 P.2d 441. In State v. Douglas, 87 Ariz. 182, 349 P.2d 622, we said: In order to fulfill the intent of the legislature in making the punishment fit the offender rather than the crime, it is necessary that the indeterminate sentence statute be mandatory. A.R.S. § 13-1643 and A.R.S. § 13-1644 are to be considered in pari materia, and they should be construed so as to give effect to each, if possible. State v. Jaastad, 43 Ariz. 458, 32 P.2d 799. Where sound reason and good conscience will allow, this court has a duty to harmonize statutes where there is a possibility of conflict. S.H. Kress & Co. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 66 Ariz. 67, 182 P.2d 931. Therefore in order to give effect to A.R.S. § 13-1644 in such a manner as not to defeat the indeterminate sentence provisions of A.R.S. § 13-1643, it is necessary that the former statute be construed not to authorize a discretionary power in the trial court to impose a sentence of life or other determinate term, but instead this statute sets forth the maximum term which the court may fix in imposing an indeterminate sentence. A.R.S. § 13-1644 does not authorize pronouncement of a fixed or determinate sentence. For the foregoing reasons, the sentence and commitment of the Pima County Superior Court is set aside. Custody of petitioner is hereby ordered transferred from the Arizona State Prison at Florence, Arizona, to the Sheriff of Pima County for resentencing in accordance with this decision. BERNSTEIN, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, UDALL and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.