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, P eti ti o n er,

v. S T E VE N D. S Z P YR KA, R e sp o n d e n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA
- CR 20 09
- 02 75
- PR

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

PETI TI ON FOR REV I EW FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY C aus e N o. C R
- 20070031 H onor abl e EdgarB
. A cuña, J udge REV I EW GR AN TED; RELI EF GRA NTED AN D R EM AN DED
B arbar a LaW al l , Pi m a C ount yA t t orney B yJ acob R. L i nes
I s abel G
. G ar ci a, Pi m a C ountyL egal D efe nder B yS c o tt A . M a rtin T ucs on A t t orney s forPet i t i oner

T ucs on A t t orney s forR es pondent
V Á S Q U E Z , J udge. JAN 14 20 10 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWOSi gni fi cant por t i ons of the A r i zona cr i m i nal s ent enci ng code ha ve bee n r enumber ed, 1 e f f e c tiv e D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 8
. See 2 0 0 8 A ri z. Ses s . L aw s , ch. 301, §§ 1- 120. Foreas e of re f e re n c e a n d b e c a u s e th e re n u m b e ri n g in c lu d e d n o s u b s ta n tiv e c h a n g e s , s ee i d. § 1 1 9 , we r efe ri n thi s deci s i on t o the curr ents ect i on num ber s r atherthan thos e i n ef fe ct w hen the offe ns es w er e comm i t t ed i n t hi s cas e. A lth o u g h S z p yrk a h a d f iled a n e a rlier p e tit io n f o r p o st-c o n v ictio n r e li e f , h is c laim 2 her e w as notpr ecl uded bec aus e i tw as notavai l abl e unt i l aft erthi s courthad vac at ed hi s pr i or c o n v ic tio n . See A ri z. R
. C ri m . P
. 3 2
. 1 (c), 3 2
. 2 (a). 2 ¶1 I n Jan u ary2 0 0 7 , S teve n S zp yrka w as c h arg ed w ith eigh t cou n ts of thir d -degr ee b u rg lar y , tw o c o u n ts o f th e f t b yc o n tro l, an d o n e c o u n t ea c h o f c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it b u rg lar y , p o ss e ss io n o f

a d a n g e ro u s d ru g , an d p o ss e ss io n o f d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia. T h e sta te al l eged S zpy rka had on e his t ori cal pri or fel on ycon v i ct i on for theft bycon trol i n cau se
n u m b e r C R -2 0 0 6 3 2 9 8 . In N o v e m b e r, S z p yrk a e n ter e d in to a p lea a g r e e m e n t, pu rsu a n t to
w hi ch he a gr eed t o pl ead gui l tyt o t he conspi r acy char ge, admi tthe pr i orfel onyconvi ct i on,
a n d b e se n ten c e d a c c o rd in g to th e e n h a n c e d ra n g e a p p ro p ria te f o r a cla ss th re e f

e lo n yw ith
o n e h i s to ri c a l p ri o r f

e lo n yc o n v ic tio n . See A .R .S . § 1 3 -7 0 3 (B ), (I). T h e sta te a g re e d to 1 di s m i s s al l otherchar ges . T he tr i al courts ent ence d Szpyr ka to an enhance d, pr es um pt i ve p ri s o n te rm o f

6 .5 y e a rs . See i d. ¶2 Szpyr ka s ubs equent l yappea l ed hi s convi ct i on i n C R
- 20063298. I n D ece m ber 2 0 0 8 , this c o u rt v a c a ted th e c o n v ictio n , f in d in g S z p yrk a ’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts p u rsu a n t to Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 3 8 4 U .S . 4 3 6 (1 9 6 6 ), h a d b e e n v io la te d
. Stat e v. Sz pyrka , 220 A r i z. 59, 202 P. 3d 524 ( A pp. 2008)
. I n A pr i l 2008, Szpyr ka fi l ed a pet i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pur s uantt o R ul e 32. 1( c) , A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. , ar gui ng hi s s ent ence i n the pre s ent cas e i s now 2T he s ame day , Szpyr ka ent er ed a gui l typl ea t o the cha r ge i n C R
- 20063298, w hi ch 3 the s t at e had appar ent l yr efi l ed. 3 unl aw ful beca us e “i tw as enhanc ed bya pr i orconvi ct i on thatha[d] s i nce be en r ever s ed on appe a l
. ” Th e tr i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d r e l i e f a n d o r d e r e d a n e w s e n t e n c i n g , f i n d i n g t he pl ea agr eement“r emai n[ed] val i d w i th the amended pr ovi s i on thatthe def endantn o lon g erhas a pr i orconvi ct i on for enhanc ement purpos es . ” A t the new s ent enci ng hear i ng, how ever , t he
c o u rt g ra n ted th e sta te’ s m o tio n to sta yth e p ro c e e d in g s to p e rm it th e sta te to c h a llen g e its
or derpur s uantt o the pet i t i on forr evi ew w e now cons i der
. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uant 3 to A .R .S . § 1 3 -4 2 3 9 (c ), a n d R u le 3 2 .9 (c ), A ri z . R . C ri m . P
. ¶3 O n r evi ew , the s t at e ar gues the tr i al courterr ed i n gr ant i ng Szpyr ka’ s pet i t i on fo r p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef an d o rde ri n g a n ew sen tenc ing h ea ri n g . W e re v iew a tri al co u rt ’s
ru lin g o n a p e titio n f

o r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f f o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Stat e v. Sw oopes , 216 Ar i z . 3 9 0 , ¶ 4 , 1 6 6 P. 3 d 9 4 5 , 9 4 8 ( App
. 2 0 0 7 )
. “ Buta tr i a l c o u r t ’ s e rr o n e o u s ru l i n g on a ques t i on of l aw . . . cons t i tut es an abus e of di s cr et i on. ” I d. T her e mustbe a f

actual bas i s for a g u il typ lea, i n clud ing a fa ctua l b asis fo r a n y p ri o r c o n v ict ion u sed to en h an ce a d ef en d an t’ s p u n is h m e n t. Stat e v. D r aper , 123 A r i z. 399, 401, 599 P. 2d 852, 854 ( A pp. 1979)
. T her efor e, “a c r i m i nal defe ndantw ho pl eads gui l ty and admi t s the exi s t ence of a pr i orconvi ct i on can,

. . . [in a p e tit io n f

o r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief ], atta c k th e s u f

f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e u se d to pr ove i t s fac tual bas i s . ” Stat e v. Johns on , 142 A r i z. 223, 224 , 6 8 9 P. 2d 166, 167 ( 1984)4

( r ever s i ng courtof appe al s ’ fi ndi ng thatadmi s s i on of pri o r c o n v ict i on i n pl ea a gr eement
co n sti tuted w aive r of

ri g h t t o ch all en g e f

ac tual b asis). ¶4 H e re , as n o ted a b o v e , S z p yrk a e n ter e d in to a p lea a g re e m e n t th a t p ro v id e d h is
s ent ence w oul d be enha nced w i th hi s convi ct i on i n C R
- 200632 9 8
. T her e w as cl ear l yno factual basi s for that conv i ct io n o n c e i tw as vacated bythis cou rt . T he st at e nev ertheles s
a rg u e s “ th e p rio r c o n v ictio n n o w e x ists a g a in ” b e c a u se S z p yrk a su b se q u e n tlyp led g u iltyto the cha r ge i n C R
- 20063298. W e di s agr ee. T o cons t i tut e a pri o r convi ct i on fors ent ence enhanc ementpurpos es , “the convi ct i on on the pr i oroffe ns e mustpr ece de the convi ct i on on the pr es entoffe ns e. ” Stat e v. Thom ps on , 200 A r i z. 439, ¶ 6, 27 P. 3d 796, 798 ( 2001)
. “O ne i s convi ct ed w hen ther e has been a det erm ination of gui l tbyver di ct , fi ndi ng, ort he
ac cept ance of a pl ea. ” I d. ¶ 7
. Butf

o l l o wi n g o u rr e v e r s a l o f th e o r i g i n a l c o n v i ct i on, Szpyr ka’ s ul t i m at e convi ct i on on the s ame char ge dat es fr om the entryof hi s s ubs equentpl ea in A u g u st 2 0 0 8 . B e c a u se S z p yrk a ’s c o n v ictio n in C R -2 0 0 6 3 2 9 8 n o lo n g e r p re c e d e s h is
c o n v i c t i on on t he p r e s e n to f f e n s e , i ti s n o ta “ p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n ” p u r s u a n tt o o u rs u p r e me
court ’ s deci s i on i n Thom ps on . And , we h a v e n o a u th o r i ty t o o v e rru l e a d e c i s i on of t he
s u p re m e c o u rt . See Stat e v. O f s t edahl , 2 0 8 A ri z. 40 6 , ¶ 8 , 9 3 P
. 3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 4 (A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶5 T he s t at e al t ernat i vel y ar gues the tr i al courts houl d have r emedi ed the l ack of a fa ctual bas i s for the pri or convi ct i on by vaca t i ng the pl ea agr eement . A nd i tcont ends the
cou rterr ed in fi nd i ng S zpy rka w as ent i t l ed to be r esent enced on the p res ent conv i ct i on as a
nonr epet i t i ve off

ender
. “Pl ea a gr eement s ar e contr actual i n natur e and s ubj ect t o contr act5

i nt erpr et at i on. ” C oy v. F i elds , 20 0 A ri z. 44 2, ¶ 9, 27 P .3 d 7 9 9 , 8 02 (A pp . 20 01 ). T hu s,
w here a plea agreem ent i s m at eri al l yal t ered bythe n ull i fi cat i on of o ne o f i t s provi si on s, f ru s tr a tin g th e a g re e m e n t’ s p u rp o s e , re s c is s io n o f th a t a g re e m e n t m a yb e w a rr a n te d
. I d. ¶ 8;
s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. B unner , 1 3 4 F
. 3 d 1 0 0 0 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶6 I n gr ant i ng Szpyr ka’ s pet i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef, the t r i al courtr el i ed pr i m ar i l yon thi s court ’ s opi ni on i n C oy . T her e, i n acc or dance w i th the t erm s of a pl ea
a g re e m e n t, th e trial c o u rt im p o se d a p ro b a tio n a ryter m f a r in e x c e ss o f

th e ter m st a tu to rily
a u th o ri z e d f

o r th e o f f e n s e s to w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t h a d p le d
. C oy , 200 A r i z. 442, ¶ 3, 27 P. 3d
a t 8 0 0 . A f

te r s e n te n c in g , th e d e f

e n d a n t f ile d a m o tio n to m o d if

yth e p ro b a tio n a ry te rm . I d. T he s t at e r es ponded byr eques t i ng perm i s s i on t o w i thdr aw fr om the pl ea a gr eementand the tr ia l c o u rt g ra n te d th e s ta te ’s re q u e s t. I d. T h e d e f

e n d a n t so u g h t sp e c ial a c tio n re lief in th is
court . A ppl y i ng contr actpri n cipl es , w e found thatthe s t at e, as the party“‘ i n the bett er p o s itio n to k n o w th e c o rr e c t la w ,’” b o re th e ri s k o f a n ym is ta k e in th e p le a a g re e m e n t. I d. ¶ ¶ 1 2 -1 3 , quot i ng Stat e v. P at i ence , 944 P. 2d 381, 388 ( U t ah A pp. 1997)
. W e al s o found that nul l i fy i ng the pr obat i on pr ovi s i on w oul d notm at er i al l y al t er the agr eement , “w hi ch pr ovi ded onl yforthe p o ss ib ili ty of up t o l i fet i m e pr obat i on” and di d notr equi r e the i m pos i t i on of any p ro b a tio n a ry te rm . I

d. ¶ 10. W e t her efor e concl uded t her e w as “no val i d gr ound on w hi ch th e sta te w a s e n title d to w ith d ra w f ro m th e p lea a g re e m e n t” a n d d ire c ted th e trial c o u rt to im p o s e a n a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e . I d. ¶ 13.6

¶7 B yco n tr as t , i n D r aper , the d efen d a n t “a g re e d to p lea d g u iltyto sh o p liftin g w ith
an uns peci fi ed pri or convi ct i on. ” 123 A r i z. at 401, 599 P. 2d at 854. T he s t at e had f i l ed an in f o rm a tio n c h a rg in g h im w ith s h o p lif tin g a n d a lle g in g a s p e c i f ic p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . I

d. H ow ever , thatconvi ct i on w as t oo r emot e i n t i m e t o s uppor t the enhanc ed s ent ence the tr i al
c o u rt s u b s e q u e n tly im p o s e d
. I d. O n appea l, an o ther depart m entof thi s courtnot ed that “[t ] he us ual di s pos i t i on w her e ther e i s no fac tual bas i s fora pl ea i s vaca t i on of the pl ea a nd
r emand w i th r ei ns t at ementof cha r ges . ” I d. F in d in g “ th e p lea a g re e m e n t, re a so n a b ly
c o n stru e d , co n tem p late [ d ] a n in teg ra ted p le a to [ b ]o th th e su b sta n tiv e o f f e n se a n d a v a lid enhanc i ng convi ct i on, ” and thatt he def endantappar ent l yhad othe r pri orconvi ct i ons t hat
a p p r o p r i a t e l y c o u ld b e u s e d to e n h a n c e h is s e n te n c e , it th e re f o re v a c a te d th e p le a . I d. Si m i l ar l y , i n Stat e v. Q ui ck , 1 6 7 A ri z. 3 1 8 , 3 2 2 , 8 0 6 P
. 2 d 9 0 7 , 9 1 1 (A p p . 1 9 9 1 ), this co u rt
vaca t ed a pl ea w her e the s ent ence w as enhanc ed err oneousl y b y a fa ct orforw hi ch no evi dence had bee n pr es ent ed. W e found that“[n] o author i tyexi s t s forthi s courtt o m odi fy the s ent ence s o as t o devi at e fr om the i nt entof both the s t at e and the def endant
. ” I

d. ¶8 T he pre s ent cas e i s cl os ert o D r aperand Q ui ck than t o C oy . H er e, ther e w as
n o “ m is ta k e a s to th e la w in e f f e c t a t th e tim e th e p a rt ie s e n te re d in to th e p le a a g re e m e n t.” See Coy , 2 0 0 A ri z . 4 4 2 , ¶ 1 2 , 2 7 P .3 d a t 8 0 3 , quot i ng P at i ence , 9 4 4 P .2 d a t 3 8 8 . T h e sta te
w a s th e re f

o re in n o b e tter p o si ti o n th a n S z p yrk a to k n o w th e p rio r c o n v ictio n u lti m a tely
w oul d be vac at ed, ther eby r ender i ng i l l egal the enhanc ed s ent ence pr ovi ded fori n the pl ea
a g re e m e n t. See Q ui ck , 1 6 7 A riz . a t 3 2 2 , 8 0 6 P .2 d a t 9 1 1 (v a c a tin g p lea w h e re “ b o thW e a re n o t p e rs u ad ed b yS zp yrka ’s co n tention that, b ec au se th e ra n g e f o r a 4 nonr epet i t i ve off

ens e over l aps in p artw i th the r ange c ont empl at ed bythe agr eement , “the re v e rs a l o f

th e p ri o r c o n v ic tio n d id n o t m a k e th e n e g o tia te d s e n te n c e im p o s s ib le to im p o s e .” T h e trial c o u rt im p o se d th e p re su m p tiv e se n ten c e o f 6 .5 y e a rs f o r a c las s th re e f

e lo n yw ith o n e p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . See A
. R
. S. § 13- 703( B ) , ( I )
. A l though the agr eementcont empl at ed, as a m i ni m um , a m i t i gat ed sent ence of 4. 5 y ear s , the pr es um pt i ve s ent ence fora nonr epet i t i ve o f f e n s e w o u ld b e 3 .5 y e a rs . See A .R .S . § 1 3 -7 0 2 (D ). A n d S z p yrk a d o e s n o t ar g u e th e re is a n yb a s i s f

o rth e tr i a l c o u r t t o i n c r e a s e h i s s e n t e n c e a b o v e th i s p r e s u mp t i v e l e v e l s h o u l d we aff i r m i t s or dergr ant i ng a new s ent enci ng. 7 att orney s w er e al ert ed t o defi ci enci es ” i n fac tual bas i s forenhanc i ng fa ctor). A nd t he agr eementdi d notm er el ypr ovi de for the poss i bi l i ty of an enhanc ed sent ence , butr equi r ed thatSzpyr ka be s ent ence d t o a t erm w i thi n the enhanc ed r ange. T he enha ncementw as 4 th e re f o re a n in te g ra l p a rt o f

th e p le a . ¶9 A s the s t at e cont end s , “the ent i r e agr eementw as s tructur ed ar ound t he exi s t ence o f the pri orconvi ct i on. ” The st at e agr eed t o di s m i s s al l butone of the thi r t een count s fi l ed aga i ns tSzpyr ka “[ b] eca us e [he ] w as w i l li n g t o admi tthe pr i orconvi ct i on and be s ubj ect t o the negot i at ed s ent enci ng r ange. ” See D r aper , 123 A r i z. at401, 599 P. 2d at854 (v a c a tin g “ in teg ra ted p lea ” w h e re n o f a c tu a l b a sis f

o r e n h a n c e m e n t); s ee al

s o O f s t edahl , 208 A r i z. 406, ¶ 7 , 9 3 P. 3 d a t1 1 2 4 ( s a me )
. Th u s , whe n th i s c o u r tv a c a t e d Sz p yr k a ’ s p r i or
c o n v ictio n o n a p p e a l, th e ter m s o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t w e re a ltere d m a ter ially , fr u stra tin g its p u rp o s e . See Coy , 2 0 0 A riz . 4 4 2 , ¶ 8 , 2 7 P .3 d a t 8 0 2 . T h e trial c o u rt th e re f o re e rre d in
o rd e rin g th a t S z p yrk a b e re se n ten c e d p u rsu a n t to a m o d if ied p lea a g re e m e n t. ¶10 S z p yrk a c o n ten d e d in h is p e tit io n f o r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief , a n d a rg u e s a g a in in h is re sp on se t o the st at e’s peti t i on for r eview , that “dou ble j eop ardycon si derat i on s”S z p yrk a su g g e sts th e sta te h a s c o n c e d e d e rro r o n th is iss u e b yn o t ad d re ss in g it i n its 5 pet i t i on forr evi ew . H ow ever , the issue w as r ai s ed bySzpyr ka more i n the natur e of a s peci fi c defe n s e t o th e s t a t e ’ s c o n tr a c t - b a s e d a r g u me n t , a n d we c o n s i d e ri ta s p a r to f o ur r evi ew of the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on. E ven as s um i ng the s t at e’ s fai l ure t o addr es s thi s i s s ue c o u ld b e c o n stru e d a s s u c h , “ w e a re n o t b o u n d b y th e sta te’ s c o n f e ss io n o f e rro r, p a rticu lar ly w hen appl i cabl e l egal pr i nci pl es do nots uppor ti t . ” Lopezv. Kear ney , 222 A r i z. 133, ¶ 10, 2 1 3 P
. 3 d 2 8 2 , 2 8 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). W e r es ol ved C oy us i ng contr actpr i nci pl es and expr es s l ydecl i ned t o r eac h the 6 defe ndant ’ s doubl e j eopar dycl ai m . 200 A r i z. 442, ¶ 13, 27 P. 3d at803. 8 precl ud e vaca t i ng the plea ag reem ent, no tw i thst and i ng anycon tractual anal y si s. See Coy , 5 2 0 0 A riz . 4 4 2 , ¶ 9 , 2 7 P .3 d a t 8 0 2 (c o u rts “ n o t a lw a y s o b lig a ted to a p p lya c o n tra c t an a ly sis to p lea ag ree m en ts b ec au se co n tr ac t law m ay n o t pro v ide a su ff ici en t ana log y ”). H o w ev er, t o the ext ent the tr i al courtbas ed i t s rul i ng on doubl e j eopar dypr i nci pl es , i tappar ent l yr el i ed
o nl yon di ct a i n C oy . See i d. ¶ 5
. And we a r e n o t o th e rwi s e p e r s u a d e d th a t vaca t i ng t he 6 agreem ent i s precl ud ed o n thatbasi s. ¶11 T he D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e “‘ pr ot ect s agai ns ta s econd pr os ecut i on fort he
sam e off ense afteracqu i t t al
. Itprot ect s agai nsta secon d p ros e cuti on for the sam e off ense aft erconvi ct i on. A nd i tpr ot ect s agai ns tm ul t i pl e puni s hm ent s forthe s ame offens e. ’ ” O h io
v. Johns on , 4 6 7 U .S . 4 9 3 , 4 9 8 (1 9 8 4 ), q u o tin gB ro w n v . O h io , 432 U
. S. 161, 165 ( 1977). T he o nlyprot ect i on rel evan there i s that agai nsta secon d p rosecut i on for the sam e off ense aft erconvi ct i on. T hat pr ot ect i on i s i nt ended t o s hi el d defe ndant s fr om act s of “gove rnm ent al oppr es s i on. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . Sc o tt , 4 3 7 U .S . 8 2 , 9 1 (1 9 7 8 ). A n d , the p ro tec tio n is
s peci fi cal l yi nt ended t o “ens ur e[] thatthe St at e does not m ake r epea t ed att empt s t o convi ct
a n in d iv id u a l, th e r e b y e x p o s in g h im to c o n ti n u e d e m b a rr a s s m e n t, a n x iety , an de x p e n se , w h ileF o r th is r ea so n , w e a re n o t persu ad ed b yS zp yrka ’s ch ara cterizati o n o f t h e state’s 7 peti t i on for r eview as a c ross -appeal r equ est i ng the p l ea be v acat ed. R at her, w e view i tas a r es pons e t o the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng gr ant i ng a new s ent enci ng on m odi fi ed t erm s t o w hi ch the part i es neveragr eed. H e ci t es no author i tyi n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on to v a c a te th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ru lin g a n d s e t f o rt h th e p ri n c ip le s it s h o u ld f o llo w o n re m a n d
. See D r aper , 123 A r i z. at401, 599 P. 2d at854. 9 in c re a s in g th e r i s k o f

a n e rr o n e o u s c o n v ic tio n o r a n im p e rm is s ib ly en h a n c e d s e n te n c e .” Johns on , 467 U
. S. at498- 99. ¶12 H ere, ho w ever, w e fi nd no affirm at i ve g ov ernm ent act i on , m uch l ess “governm entoppr es s i on. ” O n the contr ary , i ti s Sz p yrk a who , al though notexpr es s l ys eeki ng to w ith d ra w f

ro m th e p lea a g re e m e n t, h a s c a u se d its v a lid ityto b e c o m p ro m ise d th ro u g h h is appea l of the pri or convi ct i on and hi s pet i t i on for pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef. U nl i ke ca s es ci t ed b yS z p yrk a , s ee, e. g. , A r agon v. W i lki ns on , 2 0 9 A ri z. 6 1 , ¶ 6 , 9 7 P
. 3 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 9 (A p p . 2 0 0 4 ), the s t at e her e di d not i ni t i at e pr ocee di ngs t o vaca t e the pl ea a gr eement , butm er el yr es ponded to S z p yrk a ’s a ttem p t to h a v e h is se n ten c e m o d if ied c o n tra ryto th e ter m s o f th e a g re e m e n t. 7 V i ew i ng the pl ea a gr eementas “an i nt egr at ed pl ea t o [b]oth the s ubs t ant i ve off ens e and a
v ali d enhanc i ng convi ct i on, ” s ee D r aper , 1 2 3 Ar i z . a t 4 0 1 , 5 9 9 P. 2 d a t 8 5 4 , we f i n d t hat underthes e ci r cumst ance s vaca t i ng the agr eementi s anal ogous t o perm i t t ing t he r etr i al of
a d e f e n d a n t w h o h a s s u c c e ss f u ll y o b tain e d th e re v e rsa l o f a c o n v ictio n o n a p p e a l an d is th e re f o re n o t p re c lu d e d b yth e D o u b le J e o p a rd yC la u s e . See Stat e v. Moody , 208 A r i z. 424, ¶ 2 6 , 9 4 P .3 d 1 1 1 9 , 1 1 3 4 (2 0 0 4 ); se e a lso Sc o tt , 437 U
. S. at 90- 91 ( “vene r abl e pr i nci pl e ofO n r emand, anys ubs equentconvi ct i on and r esen tenc ing mustconform w i t h t he 8 r equi r ement s of N

or th C ar ol i na v. P ear ce , 395 U
. S. 71 1 (19 69) , ther ebyas s ur i ng t hat Szpyr ka i s notpenali ze d m er el yforexer ci s i ng hi s r i ghtt o chal l enge hi s s ent ence thr ough po st -convict i on proceed i ng s. 10 doubl e j eopar dyj ur i s prudence ” thats ucce s s ful appea l of co n v ict i on, otherthan for insu ff ici en cyo f e v iden ce , p o ses n o b ar to f u rth er p rose cu ti o n o n sam e c h arg e). ¶13 Forthe r eas ons s t at ed above, w e vacat e t he t r i al court ’ s or derthatSzpyr ka be
r es ent ence d and r emand forpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. 8

/s/ 

# Ga rye L. Vás que z G A R Y E L
. V Á SQ U E Z , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

/s/ 

# Peter J. Ec

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

/s/ 

# J. Wi ll ia m Bram me r, Jr
. J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge