I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO T HE S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA, A ppel l ee,

v. DEAN W I LL I AM ZI NSMEYER, A p p e llan t. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C R 2008- 0369

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N o. C R
- 20053892 H onor abl e Ted B
. B or ek, J udge AFF I RM ED I N PART ; VACATED I N PART

T err yG oddar d, A r i zona A t t or neyG ener al B yK entE
. C at t ani and Laur a P. C hi as s on
R ober tJ
. H i r s h, Pi m a C ount yPubl i c D efe nder B yM i chae l J
. M i l l er T ucs on A t t orney s forA ppel l ee

T ucs on A t t orney s forA ppel l ant
B R A M M E R , J udge. ¶1 A ppel l ant D ean Z i ns m ey er appea l s hi s convi ct i ons and s ent ence s fort heftof
a m e a n s o f

tra n sp o rta tio n a n d th ird -d e g re e b u r g la r y. H e a rg u e s th e trial c o u rt im p ro p e rly O CT 30 2009 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

a d m itt e d sta tem e n ts h e h a d m a d e d u rin g in ter v iew s w ith p o lice b e c a u se h e h a d in v o k e d h is
r i g h t t o c o u n s e l a n d h a d n o tk n o wi n g l ya n d v o l u n t a r i l ywa i v e d h i s r i g h tt o r e ma i n s i l e n t . He addi t i onal l yas s er t s t he pr os ecut ori m pr oper l yvouched f orw i t nes s es and the courthad
cons i der ed inv ali d ag g rav ati n g fa ctors in s en tenc ing
. Z insm ey er a lso c o n tend s hi s convi ct i on fort hi r d- degr ee bur gl aryw as uns u p p o rt e db yth e e v i d e n c e a n d, al t ernat i vel y , the thi r d- degr ee bur gl arys t atut e, A
. R
. S. § 13- 1506( A ) ( 1) , i s uncons t i tut i onal l yvague. Fi nal l y , he ar gues t he
cour tats ent enci ng i m pr oper l yent er ed a c r i m i n a l r e s t i tu t i on or deri ncl udi ng att orneyfee s and an i ndi gentas s es s m entfee
. W e vac at e the cr i m i nal r es t i tut i on or derand Zi ns m ey er’s
s ent ence fort heft , butaff i r m bot h of hi s convi ct i ons and h i s s ent ence fort hi r d- degr ee b u r g l a r y. Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound ¶2 O n appea l , w e vi ew th e fa cts i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o s us t ai ni ng Z in s m e y e r’ s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s . See St ate v. H aight -G yuro , 218 A r i z. 356, ¶ 2, 186 P. 3d 33, 34 ( A pp. 2008)
. I n Sept ember2005, l aw enfor cementoffi cer s l ocat ed a truck that h ad b ee n stolen sev era l day s ea rl ier. S ev era l it em s p rese n t w h en the truc k w as tak en w ere
m i s s i ng w hen i tw as r ecove r ed, i ncl udi ng r acks i ns t al l ed i n t he t ruck’ s bed, t he s par e t i r e, and a t ow hi t ch. T he truck w as found parked nea ra tr ai l erhom e thatZ i ns m ey er h ad bee n vi s i t i ng. Z i ns m ey ert ol d a Tucson Pol i ce D epart m ent( T PD ) det ect i ve he ha d s een the truck
a n d n o t i c e d i t a p p a r e n t l y h a d b e e n s t o l e n b e c a u s e t h e i g n i t i o n h a d b e e n r e m o v e d
. He admi t t ed he ha d s t ar t ed the truck w ith a s cr ew dr i verand had dr i ven i tt o pi ck up a f r i end,3

des pit e hi s bel i ef thati tpr obabl yhad bee n s t ol en. H e al s o acknow l edged he had notbeen g iv e n p e rm is s io n to ta k e th e tru c k
. ¶3 A gr and j ur ychar ged Zi ns m ey erw i th t heftof a means of tr ans por t at i on, thi r dd e g re e b u rg lar y , an d p o ss e ss io n o f b u rg lar yto o ls. A f

ter a tw o -d a y trial, th e ju ryf o u n d h im gu i l t yof theftan d b u rg lar ybu tacqu i t t ed h i m of p ossess i ng bu rgl aryt oo l s. T he juryal so found Z i ns m ey er had a pr i or fel ony convi ct i on and had comm i t t ed t hes e off ens es w hi l e on pr obat i on. T he tr i al cour ts ent ence d hi m t o an enha nced, par t i al l yaggr avat ed, ei ght
- y ear p riso n ter m f

o r th e f t an d to a c o n c u r r e n t, pr e su m p tiv e , 4 .5 -y e a r te rm f o r b u rg lar y . T h is
a p p e a l f o llo w e d
. D i s cus s i on M o tio n to S u p p re ss S tate m e n ts ¶4 Z i nsm ey er fi rs tcon t end s the t ri al cou rterr ed in den y i ng his m oti on t o sup press t he s t at ement s he had made t o i nves t i gat i ng det ect i ves . I n r evi ew i ng t he deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr ess evi dence , w e vi ew t he fa ct s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o uphol di ng the tr i al
c o u rt ’s ru lin g a n d c o n s id e r o n ly th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d a t th e s u p p re s s io n h e a ri n g . S e e S ta te
v. E l l is on , 213 A r i z. 116, ¶ 25, 140 P. 3d 899, 909 ( 2006)
. W e r evi ew the f ac tual findi ngs under l y i ng t he court ’ s rul i ng for an abus e of di s cr et i on, butw e r evi ew i t s l egal concl us i ons d e n o v o . S e e S ta te v . N e w e ll , 2 1 2 A ri z. 38 9 , ¶ 2 7 , 1 3 2 P
. 3 d 8 3 3 , 8 4 1 (20 0 6 ). ¶5 O n S e p tem b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , Z in sm e y e r p a r tic ip a ted in tw o in ter v iew s w ith det ect i ves fr om T PD
. D ur i ng hi s fi r s ti nt ervi ew w i t h det ect i ves R i dgew ayand Sol t er o,4

R i dgew ayadvi s ed Zi ns m ey erof hi s r i ght s pur s uantt o Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 38 4 U
. S. 436 (1 9 6 6 ), a n d a s k e d if

h e w o u ld b e w ill in g to a n sw e r q u e stio n s. A t f irst, Z in sm e y e r m e re ly
r epl i ed, “Pos s i bly
. ” Z insm ey ert ol d R i dgew ayhe w oul d “l et[the det ect i ves ] know i f [he
w as ] notgoi ng t o ans w ers om ethi ng” and then r es ponded t o R i dgew ay ’ s ques t i ons . D ur i ng t he i nt ervi ew , Z i ns m ey ernot ed he us ed cr ack c ocai ne a n d w o u ld “ pr obabl y[bett er ] know
w hatw as goi ng on” i f he c oul d have s om e, becaus e i thel ped hi m thi nk cl ear l y . L at eri n t he i nt ervi ew , h e tol d t he det ect i ves , “[I t ] hi nk I need a l aw y er . ” A ft ert he det ect i ves di d not
r es pond, Z i ns m ey er as ked t hem, “D o I need a l aw y er ?” T he det ect i ves r es ponded thati tw as

“ u p to [ Z in sm e y e r].” W h e n Z in sm e y e r rep e a ted th e q u e stio n , th e d e tec tiv e s e m p h a siz e d it
w a s “ [ h is ] d e c isio n ” a n d th e y“ c [ o u ld n o t] m a k e th a t d e c isio n f o r [ h im ].” Z in sm e y e r sa id
no t hing fu rther abo ut an at t orneyand res um ed an sw eri ng the d et ect i ves’ quest i on s. ¶6 L at er t hat day , T PD det ect i ve Spencer i nt ervi ew ed Z i ns m ey er . A tthe s t ar tof t he i nterview , Z i nsm ey er t old S pen cer t hat R i dg ew ay had no t i nfo rm ed hi m of h is
cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . Spencert hen r ead Zi ns m ey ert he Mi r anda w arni ngs , w hi ch Zi ns m ey er sta ted h e u n d e rsto o d b e f o re h e b e g a n a n s w e rin g S p e n c e r’s q u e stio n s. Z in sm e y e r to ld Spencerhe had found the truck “s i t t i ng i n [a] tr ai l erpark, ” the i gni t i on had al r eadybeen p u lled o u t, h e c o u ld tell i t h a d b e e n sto len , a n d h e d id n o t k n o w w h o o rig in a llyh a d sto len it. H e admi t t ed he ha d s t ar t ed the truck w i t h a s cr ew dr i ver he found on the s eatand had us ed th e tru c k f

o r s e v e ra l d a y s , k n o w in g h e w a s “ s t[ e a lin g ] a s to le n c a r.”5

¶7 B efor e tr i al , Z i ns m ey erm oved t o s uppr es s hi s s t at ement s t o Spencer , ar gui ng th a t h e h a d in v o k e d h is rig h t to c o u n se l d u rin g h is pr e v io u s inte rv iew w ith R id g e w a yo r, in t he al t ernat i ve, t hathe had not w ai ved hi s r i ght s know i ngl y and vol unt ar i l y . A tt he hea r i ng on hi s m ot i on, Z i ns m ey ert es t i fi ed he had “st at [ed] thatI thi nk I need a l aw y er ” dur i ng t he fi r s ti nt ervi ew buthad notdone s o dur i ng the s econd. H e al s o admi t t ed thatSpencerhad
r ead hi m t he Mi r anda w arni ng s duri ng the seco nd i nterview , that he un derst oo d h i s r i gh t s, and thathe had w ai ved them att hati nt ervi ew . Z insm ey ert es t i fi ed, how ever , t hathe w as “hi gh” on t he day of t he i nt ervi ew s fr om havi ng us ed cr ack c ocai ne and met hamphet ami ne
ear l i ert hatday , w hi ch he sa i d had i m pai r ed hi s m emoryand cogni t i on. H e al s o s t at ed that he had s m oked cr ack coca i ne t he ni ght befor e t he i nt ervi ew s and dur i ng the i nt ervi ew s w as exper i enci ng w i t hdr aw al , w hi ch had a ffe ct ed hi s m emoryand under s t anding
. A ft er
co n side ri n g the testi m o n yan d rev iew ing the tran scripts o f Z insm ey er’s interview s, the c o u rt deni ed Z i ns m ey er ’ s m ot i on, fi ndi ng he know i ngl y , i nt el l i gent l y , and vol unt ar i l yhad w ai ved h is rig h ts a n d h a d n o t in v o k e d h is rig h t to c o u n se l. ¶8 Z i nsm ey er as ser t s the tr i al cou rt abu sed i t s d i scr et i on i n refusi ng t o sup press
s t at ement s beca us e he ha d “i nvoked hi s r i ghtt o couns el by s ay i ng he t houghthe nee ded an at t or ney , and .
. . , i f he di d not , . . . hi s w ai verw as [i n] vol unt ary[and notknow i ng] , i n l i ght of the fa ctt hathe w as w i t hdr aw i ng fr om havi ng us ed cr ack [coc ai ne] t he ni ghtbefor e. ” A per s on i s ent i t l ed t o Mi r anda w arni ngs befor e bei ng s ubj ect ed t o cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on. B e rk e m e r v . M

c C a rty , 4 6 8 U .S . 4 2 0 , 4 3 4 (1 9 8 4 ); Mi r anda , 3 8 4 U .S . at 4 4 4 . “T h e rig h t to6

t he pr es ence of an a t t or neyi s one of the r i ghts o f w hi ch a pe r s on s ubj ectt o cus t odi al interrog ati o n m u st be inf o rm ed u n d er Mi r anda
. ” N e w e ll , 212 A r i z. 389, ¶ 24, 132 P. 3d at 8 4 1 . A n d , if th e p e rso n a ss e rts h is o r he r ri g h t to c o u n se l, “a ll q u e stio n in g m u st c e a se u n til an att or neyi s pr es entort he [pe r s on] r ei ni t i at es com m u n icati on. ” I d. I f, how ever , “the
a c cused h as been given his Mi r anda warn i n g s a n d ma k e s a v o l u n t a r y , k n o wi n g , and in te llig e n t w a iv e r o f

th o s e ri g h ts [ ,] .
. . s ta te m e n ts [ m a d e to p o lic e o f f ic e rs ] a re a d m is s ib le .” S ta te v . Sm ith , 1 9 3 A riz . 4 5 2 , ¶ 2 9 , 9 7 4 P .2 d 4 3 1 , 4 3 8 (1 9 9 9 ); se e g e n e ra lly S ta te v . T a p ia , 159 A r i z. 284, 287, 767 P. 2d 5, 8 ( 1988) ( “A ns w er i ng ques t i ons aft erpol i ce pr oper l ygi ve t he Mi r anda w arn ing s co n sti tutes a w aive r byco n d u ct. ”). ¶9 T h e state d o es n o t dispu te th e tri al co u rt ’s i m p li citfin d ing th at Z insm ey er’s in te rv ie w s c o n s titu te d c u s to d ia l in te rr o g a tio n , a n d th e re c o rd s u p p o rt s s u c h a f in d in g . See Mi r anda , 384 U
. S. at444 ( cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on i s “ques t i oni ng init iat ed byl aw enfor cementoffi cer s aft era per s on has been .
. . depr i ved of his f reedom of ac t i on i n any
s ig n if i c a n t w a y ” ). Mi r anda ’ s pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons appl i ed and, i f Zi ns m ey eri ndeed i nvoked hi s r i ght t o couns el , t he cour t w oul d have a bus ed i t s di s cr et i on bynots uppr es s i ng h is s u b s e q u e n t s ta te m e n ts . S e e N e w e ll , 212 A r i z. 389, ¶ 28, 132 P. 3d at841. ¶10 “N oteveryr efe r ence t o an at t orney , ” how ever , “must be construed bypol i ce
as an i nvocat i on of the sus pect ’ s r i ght t o couns el
. ” E l l is on , 213 A r i z. 116, ¶ 26, 140 P. 3d at 910. R ather , an off

i cerm us tonl ycea s e ques t i oni ng i f t h e defenda nt ’ s r eques tforcouns el i s “unambi guous []
. ” N e w e ll , 2 1 2 A r iz . 3 8 9 , ¶ 2 5 , 1 3 2 P .3 d a t 8 4 1 ; s ee D avis v. U ni t edI n hi s r epl ybr i ef, Z i ns m ey eras s ert s the off i cer s nonethe l es s w er e r equi r ed t o s eek 1 c lar if ica tio n o f h is am b ig u o u s co m m e n ts. A ss u m in g th e yw e re re q u ire d to d o so , the yp lain ly di d. 7 Stat es , 512 U
. S. 452, 459 ( 1994)
. “I f a r eas onabl e off i ceri n the ci r cumst ance s w oul d have
u n d e rs to o d o n ly th a t th e d e f e n d a n t m ig h t w a n t a n a tto rn e y , th e n q u e s tio n in g n e e d n o t c e a s e .” N e w e ll , 2 1 2 A riz . 3 8 9 , ¶ 2 5 , 1 3 2 P .3 d a t 8 4 1 ( e m p h a sis re m o v e d ); se e D a v is , 512 U
. S. at 459. ¶11 Z in sm e y e r’s sta tem e n t th a t h e “th[o u g h t]” h e n e e d e d a n a tto rn e y , tog e th e r w ith hi s ques t i ons aboutw hethert he det ect i ves thoughthe ne ed ed one, do notcons t i tut e an
u n a m b ig u o u s re q u e s t f

o r c o u n s e l. See , e. g. , D a v is , 5 1 2 U
. S
. at 4 5 5 , 4 6 2 (find ing su sp ec t’ s eq u ivo ca l statem en ts, “M ayb e I sh o u ld talk to a law y er” an d “I think I w an t a l aw y er b ef o re I sa ya n yth in g e lse ,” d id n o t re q u ire q u e stio n in g to c e a se ); E l l is on , 213 A r i z. 116, ¶ 29, 140 P .3 d a t 9 1 0 (d e e m in g “ I th in k I m ig h t w a n t an a tto rn e y ” e q u iv o c a l re q u e st f o r c o u n se l); S ta te
v. E as t l ack , 180 A r i z. 243, 250- 51, 883 P. 2d 999, 1006- 07 ( 1994) ( fi ndi ng s t at ement“I t hi nk I bet t ert al k t o a l aw y erfi r s t ” i ns uffi ci entt o i nvoke r i ghtt o couns el )
. A t bes t , t heyw er e an
am biguou s suggest i on he m ig h t w ant an at t orney . O ffi cers are notrequi red t o cease i nterrogat i on up on such st at em ents . S e e D a v is , 512 U
. S. at461- 62. H er e, R i dgew ayand 1 S o ltero h a d c lea rlyto ld Z in sm e y e r he c o u ld re q u e st a n a tto rn e y , b u t Z in sm e y e r n e ith e r d id
s o nor pur s ued t he i s s ue fur t her , ei t her i n t hati ni t i al i nt ervi ew ori n hi s s ubs equenti nt ervi ew
w i t h Spencer
. T he t r i al cour t , t her efor e, di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng Z i ns m ey erhad
n o t in v o k e d h is ri g h t to c o u n s e l.8

¶12 O uri nqui r y , how ever , does notend t her e. Z i ns m ey ercont ends t hat , even i f he di d not i n v o k e h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l , a n y wai v e r o f h i s r i g h t s was n e i t h e r k n o wi ng nor vol unt arybeca us e he w as undert he i nfl uence of drugs . A w ai ver i s know i ng w hen “made
w i t h a ful l aw ar enes s of both t he natur e of t he ri ght bei ng abandone d and the cons equenc es of the dec i s i on t o abandon i t . ” Mor an v. B ur bi ne , 4 7 5 U .S . 4 1 2 , 4 2 1 (1 9 8 6 ); se e a lso S ta te
v. R i vera , 152 A r i z. 507, 513 , 7 3 3 P
. 2 d 1 0 9 0, 1096 ( 1987)
. W e l ook t o the t ot al i t yof the ci rcum st ances, i ncludi ng Z i nsm ey er’ s “‘backg round , exp eri ence and con du ct ’” in d e te rm in in g w h e th e r h is w a iv e r w a s m a d e k n o w in g ly. R i vera , 1 5 2 A r i z. at513, 733 P. 2d
a t 1 0 9 6 , quot i ng Stat e v. Mont es , 1 3 6 A riz . 4 9 1 , 4 9 5 , 6 6 7 P .2 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 5 (1 9 8 3 ); s ee Mor an , 4 7 5 U .S . a t 4 2 1
. ¶13 T h e trial c o u rt f o u n d Z in sm e y e r w a s “ a n e d u c a ted [ a n d ] in tellig e n t in d iv id u a l”
w i t h a G ener al E ducat i on D i pl om a and a n “el ectr oni cs backgr ound. ” I tal s o found he ha d “s peci fi c pr i orexper i ence w it h the j us t i ce s y s t em[, namel y , ] he has a pr i orfel ony [c o n v ict ion ] an d [w as] a d v ised o f h is r igh ts w ith re g ard to tha t i n cide n t. ” T h e c o u rt concl uded that , des pi t e Zi ns m ey er ’ s as s ert i ons of i m pai r m ent , “[t ] her e w as no i ndi cat i on of anyki nd of i m pai r m ent. . . ot hert han hi s ow n [cl ai m dur i ng hi s t es t i m ony ] , ” and Zi ns m ey er

“ w a s [ ]c o h e re n t” d u rin g b o th in ter v iew s. L a st, th e c o u rt n o te d th e d e te c tiv e s h a d to ld Z i ns m ey erof hi s r i ght s dur i ng bot h i nt ervi ew s , he had s t at ed he under s t ood hi s r i ght s , and he “v ery , veryexp l i ci t [l y ]” ha d w a iv ed those ri gh t s. T he record supp ort s these findi ng s. T her efor e, w e ca nnots aythe courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng, bas ed on the t ot al i tyof9

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , th a t Z in s m e y e r k n o w in g ly h a d w a iv e d h is ri g h ts . See R i vera , 152 A r i z.
a t 5 1 3 , 7 3 3 P .2 d a t 1 0 9 6 ; s ee al s o E l l is on , 213 A r i z. 116, ¶¶ 32- 3 3 , 1 4 0 P. 3d at911 ( tr i al
c o u rt n o t r e q u ir e d to a c c e p t d e f e n d a n t’ s v e rs io n o f

e v e n ts ). ¶14 N o r w as Z insm ey er’s w aive r i n v o lun tary . L ike th e d eterm ination w h e th e r a
s t at ement w as know i ng and i nt el l i gent , “[v] ol unt ar i nes s i s a ques t i on of fa ctt o be det erm i ned fr om t he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s . ” S ta te v . D a v o lt , 207 A ri z. 1 9 1 , ¶ 29, 84 P. 3d 456, 468 ( 2004)
. A nece s s ary pr edi cat e t o fi ndi ng a s t at ementi nvol unt aryi s pol i ce “ coer ci on or i m pr operi nducement
. ” E l l is on , 2 1 3 A riz . 1 1 6 , ¶ 3 0 , 1 4 0 P .3 d a t 9 1 0 ; s ee al s o C ol or ado v. C o n n e lly , 4 7 9 U .S . 1 5 7 , 1 6 7 (1 9 8 6 ); S ta te v . Sm ith , 193 A r i z. 452, ¶ 14, 974 P. 2d 431, 436 ( 1999)
. “W hen eva l uat i ng coer ci on, t he defenda nt ’ s phy s i cal and ment al s t at es ar e r el evant to det erm i ne s us cept i bi l i t yt o coer ci on, butal one ar e notenough t o r endera s t at ement i nvol unt ary . ” Sm ith , 193 A r i z. 452, ¶ 14, 974 P. 2d at436. W e l ook t o the ci r cum s t ance s
s ur r oundi ng t he s t at ement s t o det erm i ne w hether “the defe ndant ’ s w i l l w as overbo rne ” by im p ro p e r p o lic e c o n d u c t. N e w e ll , 212 A r i z. 389, ¶ 39, 132 P. 3d at843. ¶15 Z i ns m ey erdoes not cont end, and t he re cor d does nots how , thatthe det ect i ves
coer ced ori m pr oper l yi nduced hi m t o gi ve t he s t at ement s . R ather , Z i ns m ey ers ugges t s the f a c t h e w a s e x p e rie n c in g d ru g w ith d ra w a l d u rin g th e in ter v iew s re n d e re d h is s tate m e n ts i nvol unt ary . A tone t i m e, A r i zona c as e l aw “hel d t hat i f a defe ndant w as s o i nt oxi cat ed that h e c o u ld n o t un d erstan d the m ea n ing o f h is st atem en ts, then the s tat em en ts w ere i nvol unt ary . ” Stat e v. B r avo , 1 5 8 Ar i z . 3 6 4 , 3 7 1 , 7 6 2 P
. 2 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 5 ( 1 9 8 8 )
. Bu t , a s we10

have not ed, fol l ow i ng t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n C o n n e lly , o u rs u p r e me
cour tdet erm i ned “the ques t i on of vol unt ar i nes s . . . m us tfocus on pol i ce c onduct , and not
s ol el yon t he ment al s t at e of the def endant
. ” B r avo , 1 5 8 A riz . at 37 1 , 7 6 2 P .2 d a t 1 3 2 5 ; s ee
a lso Sm ith , 193 A r i z. 452, ¶ 14, 974 P. 2d at 436. T hus , t he fact Z i ns m ey er m ayhave be en i nt oxi cat ed orexper i enci ng w i t hdr aw al w hi l e bei ng i nt err ogat ed maybe r el evantt o w hether h e w a s s u sc e p tib le to c o e rc iv e p o lice c o n d u c t, bu t itc a n n o t b y i ts e lf re n d e r h is s tate m e n ts in v o lu n ta ry. S e e Sm ith , 1 9 3 A riz . 4 5 2 , ¶ 1 4 , 9 7 4 P .2 d a t 4 3 6 ; Stat e v. Tucker , 157 A r i z. 433, 4 4 5 -4 6 , 7 5 9 P .2 d 5 7 9 , 5 9 1 -9 2 (1 9 8 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol em an , 2 0 8 F
. 3 d 7 8 6 , 7 9 1 (9th C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ) (he roin w ith d raw al alon e ins u ff ici en t t o estab li sh co n fe ssion inv o lu n ta ry). A c c o rd ing ly , w e c an n o t saythe tri al co u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing Z insm ey er’s
m oti on t o sup press . Pr os ecut or i al V ouchi ng ¶16 Z i nsm ey er nex t argues t he prosecut or “i m properl yvo uch ed fo r the w i t nesses” dur i ng openi ng s t at ementand cl os i ng arg u m en t s . T her e ar e tw o t ypes of i m pr oper pr os ecut or i al vouchi ng: w hen the pr os ecut or“pl ac[ es ] the pr es t i ge o f th e g o vernm entbehi nd
a w itn e ss ” a n d w h e n th e p ro se c u to r “s u g g e sts th a t a d d iti o n a l u n re v e a led e v id e n c e su p p o rts a gui l t yver di ct . ” Stat e v. P alm er , 219 A r i z. 451, ¶ 6, 199 P. 3d 706, 708 ( A pp. 2008)
. “W i de l at i tude, how ever , i s gi ven i n cl os i ng ar gum ent s , and couns el m aycomm enton evi dence and
ar gue al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t her efr om . ” Stat e v. D um ai ne , 162 A r i z. 392, 401, 783 P. 2d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 9 3 (1 9 8 9 ). Z in sm e y e r a c k n o w led g e s h e d id n o t o b jec t b e lo w ; th u s, w e re v iew o n ly11

f o r f u n d a m e n ta l, p re

ju d ic ia l e rr o r. S e e S ta te v . Mo rr is , 215 A r i z. 324, ¶ 47, 160 P. 3d 203, 2 1 4 (20 0 7 ); Stat e v. H

ender s on , 2 1 0 A ri z. 5 6 1 , ¶ ¶ 1 9 -20 , 1 1 5 P
. 3 d 6 0 1 , 6 0 7 (20 0 5 ). “In
or dert o cons t i tut e funda m ent al err or , the pr os ecut or ’ s comm enthad t o be s o egr egi ous as t o depr i ve the def

endantof a f

ai rt r i al , and t o r ender t he r es ul t i ng convi ct i on a deni al of due pr oces s . ” Stat e v. V

an D en B erg , 1 6 4 A riz . 1 9 2 , 1 9 6 , 7 9 1 P .2 d 1 0 7 5 , 1 0 7 9 (A p p . 1 9 9 0 ); s ee al s o Stat e v. H

ughes , 193 A r i z. 72, ¶ 26, 969 P. 2d 1184 , 1 1 9 1 (1998) ( pr os ecut or i al
m i s conduct m us t “‘ s o i nfec t [] t he t r i al w i t h unfai r nes s as t o m ake the r es ul t i ng convi ct i on a d e n ia l o f d u e p ro c e s s ’” ), qu oti ngD on nell y v. D eC hrist oforo , 4 1 6 U
. S
. 6 3 7 , 6 4 3 (19 7 4 ). ¶17 Z in sm e y e r f irst a ss e rts th e p ro se c u to r’s re m a rk in h e r op e n in g sta tem e n t th a t,

“ th ro u g h g o o d la w e n f o rc e m e n t in v e s tig a tio n , [ th e p o lic e ] f[ o u n d ] M r. Z in s m e y e r,”
c o n s titu te d im p ro p e r v o u c h in g b e c a u s e it im p lie d p o lic e “ h a d f o u n d th e c o rr e c t c ri m in a l.” B ut even i f i t i s i m pr operfora pr os ecut ort o char act er i ze the qual i t yof a pol i ce i nves t i gat i on, th is is o la te d s ta te m e n t w a s n o t so e g re g io u s a s to re s u lt in a d e n ia l o f d u e p ro c e s s . See Van D en B erg , 164 A r i z. at 196, 791 P. 2d at1079. M or eover , both att he begi nni ng of the tr i al
an d b ef o re juryd eli b era ti o n s, the tri al co u rt instructed the j u rythe a tt o rne y s’ st atem en ts w ere
n o t e v id e n c e . W e p re s u m e th e ju ro rs f o l l o w e d th o s e in s tru c tio n s . N e w e ll , 212 A r i z. 389, ¶ 68, 132 P. 3d at847. ¶18 S e c o n d , Z in sm e y e r a rg u e s th e p ro se c u to r’s sta tem e n t in c lo sin g a rg u m e n t, dur i ng di s cus s i on of the pos s es s i on of bur gl aryt ool s ch arg e, that“the s t at e i s s at i s fi ed the bur gl ar ywi t h t h e mot o r v e h i c l e a n d wha t t o o l i s i t ?” i mpr o p e r l y s u g g e s t e d “ t h e s t a t e w as12

s at i s fi ed bur gl ary occurr ed. ” Z i ns m ey er cont ends t hi s s t at ement w as an as serti o n the p ro s e c u to r w a s “ s a tis f

ie d w ith th e e v id e n c e ” a n d th e re f o re “ b e lie v e d a ll o f

th e w itn e s s e s .” W e di s agr ee. A l t hough t he s t at ementi s di ffi cul t t o under s t and, r ead i n cont ext , i ti s nothi ng
m or e than an as s er t i on t he s t at e had pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence a bur gl aryhad occ ur r ed, fol l ow ed byar gum entt hatZ i ns m ey erhad comm i t t ed the b u rglary w i t h t ool s found i n t he t ruck. T he pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement di d not “pl ace [] t he pre s t i ge of t he governm entbehi nd a
w itn e s s ” o r “ s u g g e s t[ ] t h a t a d d itio n a l u n re v e a le d e v id e n c e s u p p o rt [ e d ] a g u ilty v e rd ic t.” P alm er , 219 A r i z. 451, ¶ 6, 199 P. 3d at708. T hus , i tdi d notcons t i tut e i m pr opervouchi ng. S e e S ta te v . B ib le , 1 7 5 Ar i z . 5 4 9 , 6 0 2 , 8 5 8 P. 2 d 1 1 5 2 , 1 2 0 5 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( “ [ D] u r i n g c l o s i ng arg u m en ts co u n sel m aysu m m arize th e e v iden ce , m ak e su b m ittal s to the jury , u rge the ju ry to d raw rea so n ab le i n fe ren ce s fro m the e v iden ce , an d su g g est u lt im ate c o n clus ion s. ”). ¶19 L ast , Z i nsm ey er cont end s t he prosecut or i m properl ycharact eri zed the defe nse
c lo s in g a rg u m e n t as “ a tta c k in g w h a t p o lic e d id in s te a d o f lo o k in g a t w h a t th e d e f

e n d a n t d id ,”
re a so n in g th e p ro se c u to r’s sta tem e n t “im p li[e d ]
. . . th a t th e p o lice w e re to o tru stw o rth yto
w arr antat t ack. ” W hen s he m ade t hi s comm ent , t he pr os ecut orw as r es pondi ng t o purpor t ed d e f icie n c ies in th e p o lice in v e stig a tio n th a t Z in sm e y e r h a d id e n tifie d in h is c lo sin g a rg u m e n t. Z in sm e y e r c ites n o a u th o rity , a n d w e f in d n o n e , su g g e stin g a p ro se c u to r m a yn o t re sp o n d to a def endant ’ s ar gum entt hatl aw enfor cement ’ s i nves t i gat i on of a c r i m e w as i nadequa t e. T h e re w a s n o th in g im p ro p e r in th e p ro se c u to r’s a rg u m e n t.Si gni fi cantpor t i ons of A r i zona’ s cr i m i nal s ent enci ng code ha ve bee n amended and 2 r enumber ed, eff

ect i ve “fr om and aft erD ece m ber31, 2008. ” See 2008 A r i z. Ses s . L aw s , ch. 3 0 1 , § § 1 -1 2 0
. U n les s o th e rw ise n o ted , w e re f e r t o th e v e rsio n s o f

th o se sta tu tes a p p lica b le a t th e tim e o f

Z in s m e y e r’ s o f

f e n s e . See 2005 A r i z. Ses s . L aw s , ch. 188, § 1 ( § 13- 604) ; 2005 A ri z. S ess. L aw s, ch
. 2 0 , § 1 ; ch. 13 3 , § 1 ; ch. 16 6 , § 1 (§ 1 3 -70 2 ). 13 Im p rop er A g g rav ati n g F ac tors ¶20 A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, the j ury found Z i ns m ey er had s t ol en t he t ruck w hi l e on pr obat i on and had a p ri o r f elonyconvi ct i on. A ft ertr i al , the ca s e w as cons ol i dat ed for
se n ten c in g w ith tw o o th e r c a se s, o n e in w h ich Z in sm e y e r h a d p led g u iltya n d a n o th e r in
w hi ch he ha d admi t t ed a pr obat i on vi ol at i on. T he t r i al cour t s ent ence d hi m t o an enha nced, par t i al l yag g rav at ed, ei ght
- y earpr i s on t erm forthe theftconvi ct i on i n t hi s cas e, fi ndi ng as
a g g r a v a t i n g f

a c t o r s t h a t h e w a s o n p r o b a t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f th e o f f e n s e a n d

— m i s t a k e n l y— t hat “the offens e i nvol ved accompl i ces and w as comm i t t ed forpecuni arygai n. ” See A
. R. S. § 1 3
- 1 8 1 4 ( D) ( t h e f

to f me a n s o f

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c l a s s th r e e f e l o n y ) ; A. R. S
. § 1 3
- 6 0 4 ( B) (m a x im u m a g g ra v a ted p riso n ter m th irtee n y e a rs) ; se e g e n e ra lly A
. R
. S. § 13- 702( C ) ( l i s t i ng aggr avat i ng fac t or s )
. T hatt he off ens e w as comm i t t ed w hi l e the def endantw as on pr obat i on 2 is nota speci fi cal l yl i st ed ag gravat i ng fact or and, therefore, fal l s und er the “ c a tch -a ll” p ro v isio n o f

f o rm e r § 1 3 -7 0 2 (C )(2 4 ): “ A n yo th e r f a c to r th a t th e sta te a lleg e s is re lev a n t to th e d e f e n d a n t’ s c h a ra c t e r o r b a c k g ro u n d o r t o th e n a tu re o r c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e c ri m e .” T h at provi s i o n is i d en ti ca l t o the c u rren t catch -all p rov isi o n fo u n d in A
. R
. S
. § 1 3 -70 1 (D )(24 ). ¶21 Z i ns m ey eras s er t s t he tr i al cour ti m pr oper l yfound as aggr avat i ng fac t or s that t he theftw as com m i t t ed fo r pecun i arygain and w i t h acco m pli ces. T he st at e con cedes t ho seI n h i s o p e n i n g b r i e f , Z i n s me y e r a r g u e d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d o n t wo 3 i m pr oper ag g rava t i ng fac t or s , w e mustvaca t e hi s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng u n d er Stat e v. P eña , 2 0 9 A ri z. 50 3 , ¶ 2 4 , 1 0 4 P
. 3 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 9 (A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). O u r su p rem e c o u rt deci ded Schm i dtw h ile th is a p p e a l w a s p e n d in g , an d w e re q u e ste d th e p a rties su b m it s uppl ement al br i efs on i t s appl i cat i on. B eca us e w e fi nd Schm i dtcontr oll ing , w e nee d not rea ch Z insm ey er’s ad d it ion al arg u m en t th at his sen tenc e w as o therw ise i m p rop er. A d d it ion all y , in an arg u m en t h ea d ing in his o p en ing b ri ef , Z insm ey er a sserts th e tri al co u rt err oneous l y cons i der ed t he i m pr oper aggr avat i ng fac t or s i n i m pos i ng a pr es um pt i ve t erm of i m pr i so n m ent forhi s t hi r d- degr ee bur gl aryconvi ct i on. B utZ i ns m ey erneverdevel ops an a rg u m e n t in su p p o rt o f

th is a ss e rtio n a n d a rg u e s o n lyth a t h is th e f t s e n ten c e w a s im p ro p e rly aggr avat ed. T he r ecor d, m or eover , s how s the courtdi d notr el yon the di s put ed aggr avat i ng fa ctors w h en d eterm ining Z insm ey er’s sen tenc e fo r h is b u rglary co n v ict ion
. W e the ref o re do notcons i dert he pr opr i etyof Zi ns m ey er ’ s bur gl arys ent ence . 14 fac t or s w er e found i m pr oper l y , not i ng t he court“appa r ent l yconfus ed” the fa ct s of thi s t heft wi t h t h o s e o f a n o t h e r o f Zi n s me y e r ’ s o f f e n s e s f o rwh i c h h e wa s b e i n g s e n t e n c e d a tth e s a me h ea ri n g . T h e tran script of the s en tenc ing h ea ri n g sh o w s tha t, w h en d iscu ssing Z insm ey er’s convi ct i on i n another m att er , t he s t at e had ar gued t he s ent ence forthatconvi ct i on s houl d be ag g rav ated b ase d o n the p rese n ce o f a cc o m p li ce s an d Z insm ey er’s ap p are n t pe cu n iary
m o ti v e. T h e state m ad e n o su ch all eg ati o n s reg ard ing the c o n v ict ion s in this m att er. ¶22 Z i ns m ey er ar gues ours upr eme cour t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n Stat e v. Schm i dt , 220 A r i z. 563, 208 P. 3d 214 ( 2009) , r equi r es us t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence fortheftand r emand for
r es ent enci ng. T he def

endanti n Schm i dth ad b ee n sen tenc ed to an ag g rav ated p ri so n term 3 b a s e d s o le ly o n th e c a tc h -a ll p ro v is io n . I d. ¶ 3. T he s upr eme cour tnot ed thatfac t s expos i ng a def endantt o a s ent ence bey ond t he pr es um pt i ve t erm ar e “the func t i onal equi val ent [s ] of
an el ement of an aggr avat ed off ens e. ” I d. ¶ 7. T hus , t he cour t r eas oned, i t m us t“as s es s t he vaguene s s of the ca t ch- al l aggr avat or i n A r i zona’ s s ent enci ng s cheme w hen i t al one i s us ed15

t o i ncr eas e a de fenda nt ’ s m axi m um p o tentia l s ent ence . ” I d. D eterm ining the c atch -all ’s lan g u a g e to b e “ p a ten tlyv a g u e ,” th e c o u rt d e ter m in e d it g iv e s a se n ten c in g c o u rt “ v irtu a lly unl i m i t ed pos thoc di s cr et i on t o det ermi ne w hetherthe def endant ’ s pr i orconducti s t he funct i onal equi val entof an el ement of t he aggr avat ed off ens e. ” I d. ¶¶ 9 -10
. T h u s, the c o u rt concl uded t hat “i ncr eas [i ng] a defe ndant ’ s s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence ” bas ed s ol el yon t he cat ch- al l pr ovi s i on “vi ol at es due pr oces s . ” Id
. ¶ 10. ¶23 T h e sta te a rg u e s th a t Schm i dti s i nappl i cabl e bec aus e the tr i al cour tal s o r el i ed
o n Z in sm e y e r’s p rio r f

e lo n y c o n v ictio n to a g g ra v a te h is s e n ten c e . B u t th e sta te m isin terp re ts t he court ’ s s ent enci ng m i nut e entr yand col l oquy . T he courts ent ence d Z i ns m ey ert o an
e n h a n c e d s e n te n c e b a s e d o n h is p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . See A .R .S . § 1 3 -6 0 4 (B ). A lth o u g h its
m in u te e n try lists Z in sm e y e r’s p rio r f e lo n yc o n v ictio n a s a “ [ c ]irc u m sta n c e [ ]” re lev a n t to h is
s ent ence , w hi l e pr onounci ng Z i ns m ey er ’ s s ent ence , t he cour tdi d notci t e hi s pr i orconvi ct i on
as an aggr avat i ng fac t or . “W her e t her e i s a di s cr epanc y betw een t he ora l s ent ence and the
w r i t t en j udgm ent , t he ora l pr onouncement of sent ence contr ol s . ” Stat e v. H ans on , 138 A r i z. 2 9 6 , 3 0 4 -0 5 , 6 7 4 P .2 d 8 5 0 , 8 5 8 -5 9 (A p p . 1 9 8 3 ); s ee al s o Stat e v. Leon , 197 A r i z. 48, n. 3, 3 P
. 3 d 9 6 8 , 9 6 9 n . 3 (A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). T h u s, alth o u g h the co u rt co u ld h av e re li ed o n Z insm ey er’s p ri o r c o n v ic tio n to a g g ra v a te h is s e n te n c e , it d id n o t d o s o . See Stat e v. LeMas t er , 137 A r i z. 159, 166, 669 P. 2d 592, 599 ( A pp. 1983) ( “D oubl e j eopar dyordoubl e puni s hm entpr i nci pl es do notpr ecl u d e t he tr i al cour tfr om us i ng t he pr i orconvi ct i on t o i m pos e an e nhance d16

s ent ence undert he r eci di vi s ts t atut e, A
. R
. S. § 13- 604, and t o fi nd aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s
u n d er A
. R
. S
. § 1 3 -70 2
. ”). ¶24 C on seq u ent l y , w i t houtthe i m pr operaggr avat i ng fac t or s l i s t ed bythe tr i al
cour t

— pecuni arygai n and the pr es ence of ac com p li ce s
— t he onl yr emai ni ng aggr avat i ng fac t oractual l yfound byt he courtw as t he fa ctZ i ns m ey er h ad co m m i t t ed theftw hi l e on pr obat i on, w hi ch, as w e noted above, fal l s w i t hi n t he ca t ch- al l pr ovi s i on. T hus , under Schm i dt , th e c o u rt c o u ld n o t a g g ra v a te Z in s m e y e r’ s s e n te n c e s o le ly o n th a t b a s is
. See 220 A r i z. 563, ¶ 10, 208 P. 3d at217. B ut , as Z i ns m ey erpoi nt s out , the s upr eme cour ti n Schm i dt ad d resse d a p rev iou s v ersion o f th e c atch -all p rov isi o n , w h ich re ad : “‘A n yo ther f ac tors
w hi ch t he cour t m ay deem a ppr opr i at e t o t he ends o f j us t i ce. ’ ” Id . ¶ 8 , quot i ng f or m er § 13- 702( D ) ( 13)
. T he ca t ch- al l appl i cabl e i n eff ect atthe t i m e Zi ns m ey ercomm i t t ed theft i ns t ead r eads : “A ny ot herfac t ort hatt he s t at e al l eges i s r el evantt o t he def endant ’ s char act er
orbackgr ound or t o t he natur e orci r cumst ance s of the cr i m e. ” § 13- 702( C ) ( 24)
. W e agr ee
w ith Z in sm e y e r, h o w e v e r, th a t Schm i dt ’s reas on i ng no nethel ess appl i es. ¶25 B eca us e i tencompas s es onl yfac t or s al l eged bythe s t at e thatr el at e t o t he defe ndant ’ s char act erorbackgr ound ort o the natur e of t he cr i m e, t he cur r entver s i on of the cat ch- al l ar guabl ynarr ow s t he “vi r tual l y unl i m i t ed .
. . di s cr et i on” the l anguage of the form er p ro v is io n a f

f o rd e d a tr ia l c o u rt . Schm i dt , 220 A r i z. 563, ¶ 10, 208 P. 3d at217. B ut , w hen
comm i t t i ng an offe ns e, a defe ndant w oul d s t i l l l ack not i ce thathi s orherpr obat i on s t atus
— or any other of an essent i al l yun l i m i t ed setof f act s or ci rcum st ances— cou l d serve t o incr easeA defe ndant w oul d, of cour s e, have not i ce thatcomm i t t i ng an off ens e w hi l e on 4 p ro b a tio n w o u ld re s u lt in th e s ta tu to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e b e in g th e p re s u m p tiv e te rm . See A .R .S . § 1 3 -6 0 4 .0 2 (B ). B u t th a t is n o t th e sa m e a s n o tice th a t co m m itt in g a n o f f e n se w h ile on probati on cou l d expo se a defe nd ant t o a sentence ex ceeding the presum pti ve term . T hu s, w e s ee no pr i nci pl ed r eas on t o t r eata def endant ’ s pr obat i on or r el eas e s t atus as di ffe r entt han anyot herfac t orfal l i ng undert he ca t ch- al l pr ovi s i on. 17 t h e l e n g t h o f

a n ys e nt e nc e ul t i ma t e l yi mp o s e d b e y o n d th e p r e s u mp t i v e t e r m. See Stat e v. 4 St ei ger , 1 6 2 A riz . 1 3 8 , 1 4 1 , 7 8 1 P .2 d 6 1 6 , 6 1 9 (A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) (“ [ A ] p e n a l sta tu te is v a g u e if it fa ils to g iv e p e rso n s o f a v e ra g e in tellig e n c e re a so n a b le n o ti c e o f w h a t b e h a v io r is p roh ibit ed o r i s d raf

ted in su ch a m an n er tha t i t perm its arbitr aryan d d iscri m inato ry enfor cement . ”)
. I f used t o s uppl y t he s ol e aggr avat i ng fac t or , t he curr entcat ch- al l , l i ke the form er , eff

ect i vel yadd s as an elem entt o anycr i m e “‘ anyt hi ng el s e . . . t he s t at e may
s om edayl at erfi nd r el evant . ’ ” Schm i dt , 2 2 0 A ri z . 5 6 3 , ¶ 9 , 2 0 8 P .3 d a t 2 1 7 , q u o tin gS ta te
v. P r i ce , 2 1 7 A r i z . 1 8 2 , ¶ 2 7 , 1 7 1 P
. 3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 2 8 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( H u r w i t z , J
. , c o n c u r r i n g )
. We t her efor e fi nd t he curr entver s i on of t he ca t ch- al l pr ovi s i on i s as “pat ent l yvague” as t he
s u p re m e c o u rt f

o u n d th e f

o rm e r. Schm i dt , 220 A r i z. 563, ¶ 9, 208 P. 3d at217. ¶26 Z i ns m ey erad m it s he di d notobj ectt o t he tr i al court ’ s i m pos i t i on of an aggr avat ed s ent ence. T h u s, he has for fei t ed the r i ghtt o r el i ef unl es s he ca n s how f u n d a m e n ta l, p re

ju d ic ia l e rr o r o c c u rr e d
. See H ender s on , 210 A r i z. 561, ¶¶ 19- 20, 115 P. 3d
a t 6 0 7 . Im p o s itio n o f a n ille g a l se n te n c e , h o w e v e r, c o n s titu te s f u n d a m e n ta l e rr o r. Stat e v. A lvar ez , 205 A r i z. 110, ¶ 18, 67 P. 3d 706, 712 ( A pp. 2003)
. A nd w e agr ee w i t h Z i ns m ey er that h e w as p rejud iced
. A lth o u g h , a s n o te d , th e tri al co u rtco u ld h av e f o u n d Z insm ey er’s pr i orconvi ct i on t o be an a ggr avat i ng fac t or , i t di d not do s o. T hus , i n l i ghtof Schm i dt , itis18

lik e ly th e tr ia l c o u rt w o u ld im p o s e a d if f e re n t s e n te n c e o n re m a n d
. See Stat e v. Munni nger , 213 A r i z. 393, ¶ 14, 142 P. 3d 701, 705 ( A pp. 2006) ( t o demonstr at e pr ej udi ce, defe ndant
m us toffe rm or e t han “s pecul at [i on] thatthe s ent enci ng j udge” mi ghthave i m pos ed l es s er
se n ten c e ); cf

. Hender s on , 210 A ri z. 5 6 1 , ¶ 28, 115 P. 3d at609 ( defe ndantdemonstr at es pr ej udi ce i f “r eas onabl e j ur yappl y i ng the corr ects t andar d of pro o f coul d have r eac hed a d if f e re n t co n c lu sio n th a n d id th e trial ju d g e ” ). A c c o rd in g ly , fo r th e re a so n s sta ted , w e v a c a te Z i ns m ey er ’ s s ent ence fort heftand r emand t he ca s e t o t he tr i al cour tforr es ent enci ng. S u ff ici en cyo f th e E v iden ce o f T h ir d -D eg ree B u rglary ¶27 Z in sm e y e r c laim s th e sta te p re se n ted in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt h is convi ct i on for b u rglary i n t he thi r d degr ee. H i s s ol e ar gum enton thi s cl ai m i s t hatthe
s ub s e c t i on of

t he t hi r d- de gr e e bu r gl a r ys t a tut e un de rw hi c h h e w a s c on vi c t e d, A
. R. S. § 13- 1506( A ) ( 1) , does notappl yt o v ehi cl es “w hi ch ca nnotbe i nhabi t ed. ” A l t hough Z in s m e y e r m o v e d f

o r a ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itta l at tr ia l p u rs u a n t to R u le 2 0 , A ri z . R . C ri m . P ., h e d id n o t m a k e th e a rg u m e n t h e n o w ra ise s o n a p p e a l. T h e re f o re , h e h a s f

o r f e it e d th is
a rg u m e n t a b s e n t p re

ju d ic ia l, f

u n d a m e n ta l e rr o r. See H ender s on , 210 A r i z. 561, ¶¶ 19- 20, 1 1 5 P
. 3 d at 6 0 7
. A co n v ict ion b ase d o n insu ff ici en t ev iden ce co n sti tutes fu n d am en tal erro r. Stat e v. Str oud , 209 A r i z. 410, n. 2, 103 P. 3d 912, 914 n . 2 (20 0 5 ). L i kew i s e, a convi ct i on b a s e d o n a n o n e x is te n t th e o ry o f lia b ility is f

u n d a m e n ta l e rr o r. See Stat e v. O nt i ver os , 206 A ri z. 53 9 , ¶ 1 7 , 8 1 P
. 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 (A p p . 2 0 0 3 ).19

¶28 W hen i nt erpr et i ng a s t atut e, “[o] urgoal
. . . i s t o di s cern and i m pl ementt he i nt entof the l egi s l atur e. ” Id
. ¶ 8. W e fi rs tl oo k to the p l ai n langua ge o f t he st atute as t he b est in d ic a to r o f

le g is la tiv e in te n t. See Stat e v. C hr is t i an , 205 A r i z. 64, ¶ 6, 66 P. 3d 1241, 1243 ( 2003)
. W or ds ar e gi ven thei r“‘ or d inary m ea ni ng unl es s i tappea r s fr om the cont extor
o th e rw is e th a t a d if

f e re n t m e a n in g ’” c o n tr o ls
. S ta te v . H o g g a tt , 199 A r i z. 440, ¶ 8, 18 P. 3d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 2 (A p p . 2 0 0 1 ), q u o tin gS ier ra T u c so n , In c . v. P im a C o u n ty , 178 A r i z. 215, 219, 8 1 7 P .2 d 7 6 2 , 7 6 6 (A p p . 1 9 9 4 ). W e w ill n o t ad o p t an in terp re tatio n o f a sta tu te th a t is

“ p a ten tlyu n re a so n a b le” o r o n e th a t is “ u n d u lyre stric tiv e ” w h e n su c h a n in terp re tatio n is
u n s u p p o rt e d b yle g is la tiv e h is to ry o r p u b lic p o lic y . S ta te v . H a m b lin , 217 A r i z. 481, ¶ 11, 1 7 6 P
. 3 d 4 9 , 5 2 (A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). ¶29 S ec ti o n 1 3 -15 0 6 (A )(1) p rov ides that a p erso n co m m it s third-d eg ree b u rglary by“[e ] nt er i ng orr emai ni ng unl aw ful l y i n or on a nonr es i dent i al s t ructur e . . . w i t h t he i nt ent to co m m itan ythef

t or an yfe lon ythere in.” S ec ti o n 1 3 -15 0 1 (12 ), A
. R
. S
. , d ef ines the term “[s ] t ructur e” a s “anyvendi ng m achi ne oranybui l di ng, obj ect , vehi cl e, r ai l r oad carorpl ace
w i t h s i des and a f

l oort hati s s epar at el ys ecur abl e fr om any other s t ructur e at t ache d t o i tand th a t is u se d f

o r l o d g in g , b u sin e ss , tra n sp o rta tio n , rec re a tio n o r sto ra g e .” T h is c o u rt re c e n tly
c o n f ir m e d th a t § 1 3 -1 5 0 6 (A )( 1 ) i n c lu d e s b u rg la ry o f a m o to r v e h ic le
. S e e H a m b lin , 217 A ri z . 4 8 1 , ¶ ¶ 9 , 1 5 , 1 7 6 P .3 d a t 5 2 , 5 3 . A n d a tru c k is p la in ly a v e h ic le
. See A
. R. S. § 13- 105( 40) ( “[v] ehi cl e” means a d ev ice b y w hi ch anyper s on “i s , m aybe orcoul d have been t r ans por t ed”)
. T hus , t he l egi s l atur e musthave i nt ended thi r d- degr ee bur gl aryt o i ncl ude20

b u rg la ry o f

a tru c k
. See Chris t i an , 20 5 A ri z. 64 , ¶ 6, 66 P
. 3d at12 43 (pl ai n langua ge b est ind icator o f leg isl ati v e inten t)
. ¶30 Z i ns m ey erat t empt s t o i nj ectambi gui t yi nt o the s t atutes byemphasi zi ng t he defi ni t i on of the phr as e “[ e] nt erorr emai n unl aw ful l y . ” A s pr ovi ded i n § 13- 1501( 2) , t he phr as e i s defi ned as

an ac tof a pe r s on w ho ent er s orr emai ns on pr em is es w hen the per s on’ s i nt entfors o ent er i ng orr emai ni ng is n otl i cens ed, a u th o riz e d o r o th e rw ise p riv ileg e d e x c e p t w h e n th e e n try is to comm i t t heft of m er chandi s e di s pl ay ed for s al e dur i ng n o r m al b u sine s s hour s , w hen the pr emi s es ar e open t o t he publ i c and w hen the p er s on does notent eranyunauthor i zed a r eas of the p re m is e s . ( E m phas i s added. ) Z i ns m ey er obs erves t he t erm “pr emi s es ” i s notdefi ned i n t he s t atut e and
o f f e rs a d ictio n a ryd e f

in iti o n o f th e ter m th a t re stric ts it to a “ h o u se o r b u ild in g , alo n g w ith i t s gr ounds
. ” See B l ack’s La w D i ct i on ary 1219 ( 8th ed. 2004)
. T hus , Z i ns m ey erar gues , t he
us e of the t erm “[e ] nt er i ng or r emai ni ng unl aw ful l y ” i n § 13- 1506( A ) ( 1) m eans t hi r d- degr ee bur gl aryundert hatsu b sec ti on i s onl yacc om pl i s hed w hen a pe r s on ent er s orr emai ns i n a ho use or bu i l ding or i t s ground s. B ecause a truck i s not a hou se, a bu i l ding, or g ro un ds, Z in sm e y e r p o sits th a t tru c k s— a n d a ll v e h icle s th a t ca n n o t b e in h a b ited

— m u st n e c e ss a rily fa ll o u tsi d e the sco p e o f § 1 3 -15 0 6 (A )(1). ¶31 W e re w e to a c c e p t Z in s m e y e r’ s a rg u m e n t, w e w o u ld h a v e to d e f in e “ v e h ic le ,”
as us ed i n t he def

i ni t i on of “[ s ] t ructur e” i n § 13- 1501( 12) , as “a ve hi cl e thatcan be i nhabi t ed. ” B ut , had the l egi s l atur e i nt ended the t erm “vehi cl e” to h ave suc h a r es t r i ct i ve21

in te rp re ta tio n , it w o u ld h a v e s a id s o e x p re s s ly. S e e H a m b lin , 217 A r i z. 481, ¶ 11, 176 P. 3d at52 ( cour tw i l l notadop t u n d u l yr es t r i ct i ve and uns uppor t ed i nt erpr et at i on)
. A nd t he defi ni t i on of “[ e] nt erorr emai n unl aw ful l y ” i n § 13- 1501 (2) is c lear l yfocus ed on the unauthor i zed na tur e of the ac tof ent er i ng orr emai ning in a p art i cul arpl ace , w her eas t he
v ariou s s ta tu to ry d e f

in itio n s o f

re s id e n tia l a n d n o n re s id e n tia l “ s tru c tu re [ s ]” in § 1 3 -15 0 1 (10 ), ( 11) , and ( 12) di ffe r ent i at e betw een the types of pl ace s ent er ed as de t erm i ni ng t he degr ee of b u rg la ry c o m m itte d
. See §§ 13- 1506, 13- 1507. ¶32 W e c o n clud e itw o u ld b e p aten tl yu n rea so n ab le t o co n stru e the w o rd

“ p re m ise s” in § 1 3 -1 5 0 1 (2 ) a s a n u n e x p re ss e d lim itatio n o n th e w o rd “ v e h icle ” in § 1 3 -1 5 0 1 (1 2 ). See H

a m b lin , 217 A r i z. 481, ¶ 11 , 1 7 6 P
. 3 d at52 ( cour tw i l l notadopt
unr eas onabl e cons t ruct i on)
. R eadi ng t he s t atut es to g ethe r and i n cont extm akes cl eart hat th ir d -d e g re e b u rg la ry in c lu d e s a n a c t o f e n te ri n g o r r e m a in in g u n la w f u lly in a tru c k
. See H o g g a tt , 1 9 9 A riz . 4 4 0 , ¶ 8 , 1 8 P .3 d a t 1 2 4 2 (c o u rt c o n sid e rs c o n tex t o f sta tu te in d eterm ining m ea n ing o f term s). ¶33 T h u s, the j u ry p rop erly co u ld fi n d Z insm ey er gu il ty o f th ir d -de g ree b u rg lary i f i t found he ha d r emai ned unl aw ful l yi n a truck w i t h t he i nt entt o comm i tt heftof thatt ruck. § 1 3 -15 0 6 (A )(1). S u b stan ti al ev iden ce , inclu d ing h is ow n test im o n y , su p p o rt s the jury ’s fi ndi ng t hathe di d s o. B eca us e Z i ns m ey er otherw i s e does notchal l enge the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence t o s uppor tt hi s convi ct i on, he has fai l ed t o s how err or , fundament al or
o th e rw is e . See H

ender s on , 210 A r i z. 561, ¶ 23, 115 P. 3d at608.22

V a g u e n e ss C laim ¶34 In th e a ltern a tiv e , Z in sm e y e r a rg u e s th e th ird -d e g re e b u rg lar y sta tu te is
u n c o n s titu tio n a llyv a g u e . H e a c k n o w led g e s h e d id n o t ra ise th is a rg u m e n t b e lo w , b u t th is
cour tm aycons i dera vague nes s chal l enge t o a s t atut e eve n w hen r ai s ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on
a p p e a l. See Stat e v. A nders on , 1 9 9 A ri z. 18 7 , ¶ 1 4 , 1 6 P
. 3 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 8 (A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶35 A statu te i s “u n co n sti tuti o n all yv ag u e if itd o es n o t g iv e p erso n s o f o rdin ary in tellig e n c e a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto lea rn w h a t itp ro h ib its a n d d o e s n o t p ro v id e e x p licit
s t andar ds fort hos e w ho w i l l appl yi t . ” Stat e v. Takacs , 169 A ri z. 392, 394, 819 P. 2d 978, 980 ( A pp. 1991)
. T he part y ch all en g ing a s t atut e’ s val i di t yhas the bur den of ove r comi ng
a s tr o n g p re s u m p tio n o f c o n s titu tio n a lity. See St at e v. McM ahon , 201 A r i z. 548, ¶ 5, 38 P. 3d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 1 5 ( A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). “[ D ]u e p ro c e ss d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t a s tatu te b e d ra f ted w ith abs ol ut e pr eci s i on. ” Takacs , 169 A r i z. at395, 819 P. 2d at981. A ddi t i onal l y , t he omi s s i on
o f a n e x p licit d e f

in iti o n f o r a sta tu to ryter m o r th e f a c t th a t a s tat u te m a y b e s u sc e p tib le to d iffe ren t i n terpr e ta tio n s d o e s n o t r e n d e r t h e s ta tu te u n c o n s titu tio n a lly v a g u e . S ta te v . L e f evre , 1 9 3 A ri z. 38 5 , ¶ 1 8 , 9 7 2 P
. 2 d 1 0 2 1 , 1 0 2 6 (A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). ¶36 Z i ns m ey erar gues § 13- 1506( A ) ( 1) i s uncons t i tut i onal l yvague be caus e of the purpor t ed cont r adi ct i on betw een t he defi ni t i on of “[ s ] t ructur e” i n § 13- 1501( 12) t o i ncl ude
v eh icl es a n d h is pro ff

ere d d ict ion aryd ef

init ion o f “ p rem ises, ” a term u sed in § 1 3 -15 0 1 (2),
w hi ch exc l udes vehi cl es . Z i ns m ey ercl ai m s t hat , beca us e of t hi s contr adi ct i on, a per s on of
o rd in a ryin tellig e n c e w o u ld n o t k n o w w h e th e r th e th ird -d e g re e b u rg lar ysta tu te a p p lies to23

vehi cl es . B ut , i n keepi ng w i t h ouranal y s i s of Z insm ey er ’ s s uffi ci ency - of- t he- evi dence cl ai m , w e conc l ude the i ncl us i on o f th e s t a tut or i l yundefi ned t erm “pr emi s es ” i n § 13- 1501( 2) cannotr eas onabl ybe i nt erpr et ed t o excl ude “ve hi cl es ” fr om t he expr es s defi n i t i on of “[s ] t ructur e” i n § 13- 1501( 12)
. T he us e of the w or d “pr emi s es ” i s atw or s ti m pr eci s e, and
w e w i l l notdecl ar e a s t atut e i nval i d s i m pl ybeca us e i tm i ghthave be en “w r i t t en w i t h gr eat er pr eci s i on. ” Takacs , 169 A r i z. at395, 819 P. 2d at 981. W e see no l i kel i hood t hata per s on of reasonab l e i ntel l i gen ce w ou l d n ot under sta n d that§ 1 3-150 6(A )( 1) appli es t o v ehicl es,
w hi ch ar e s peci fi cal ly included i n t he def i ni t i on of s t ructur e i n § 13- 1501( 12)
. T her efor e, Z i n s m e ye rh a s n o ts u s t a i n e d h i s b u r d e n t o o v e r c o m e t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i ty. See M cM ahon , 201 A r i z. 548, ¶ 5, 38 P. 3d at1215. C r i m i nal R es t i tut i on O r der ¶37 A t se n tenci ng, t he tr i al cour tent er ed a c r i m i nal r es t i tut i on or derr equi r i ng Z in s m e ye r t o p a y$ 4 0 0 in a tto rn e yf e e s a n d a $ 2 5 in d ig e n t a s s e s s m e n t f e e . See A
. R. S. § 13- 805. W e agr ee w i t h t he part i es t hat t hi s w as i m pr oper ; s uch or der s m ay onl ybe ent er ed
a t th e c o m p le t i o n o f a d e f e n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e . See § 1 3 -8 0 5 (A ); Stat e v. Lew andow s ki , 220 A r i z. 531, ¶¶ 4, 11, 207 P. 3d 784, 786, 788 ( A pp. 2009) ( ear l yentr yof r es t i tut i on or derat
s ent enci ng i l l egal “bec aus e i t r equi r es a defenda nt t o m ake a ddi t i onal paym ent s thatar e not
a u th o ri z e d b y l a w ” )
. Z i n s m e y e r a d m its h e d id n o t r a is e th is is s u e b e lo w . See Hender s on , 2 1 0 A ri z. 56 1 , ¶ 1 9 , 1 1 5 P
. 3 d at 60 7
. T h e p rem ature e n tr y o f a c rim inal resti tuti o n o rde r, h o w ev er, co n sti tutes an il lega l sen tenc e, w h ich is fu n d am en tal , rev ersible e rror.24

Lew andow s ki , 220 A r i z. 531, ¶ 15, 207 P. 3d at789. W e ther efor e vac at e the cr i m i nal resti tuti o n o rde r. D i s posi t i on ¶38 Fort he r eas ons s t at ed, w e vaca t e both Z i ns m ey er ’ s s ent ence fort heftand the
cr i m i nal r es t i tut i on or der
. W e af fi r m hi s convi ct i ons fortheftand thi r d- degr ee bur gl aryand h is s e n te n c e f

o r t h ir d -d e g re e b u rg la ry.

J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

G A R Y E L
. V Á SQ U E Z , J udge