Source: http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140114_0000045.AZ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-05-25 01:04:21
Document Index: 602991320

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13']

| State v. Piotrowski
State v. Piotrowski
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,v.ROBERT MICHAEL PIOTROWSKI, Appellant.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR2011-126262-001, CR2008-118920-002, CR2007-132081 The Honorable Roger E. Brodman, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Adele Ponce Counsel for Appellee. The Hopkins Law Office, PC, Tucson By Cedric Martin Hopkins Counsel for Appellant
Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
¶1 Robert Michael Piotrowski ("Defendant") appeals from the sentences imposed by the trial court. We affirm for the reasons discussed below.
¶2 A jury found Defendant guilty of aggravated assault, a class two dangerous felony, and possession of dangerous drugs, a class four non-dangerous felony (the "2012 convictions"). At the time Defendant was convicted of these 2012 offenses, he was on probation in two prior cases (the "2008 convictions").
¶3 At sentencing, the trial court imposed concurrent, presumptive prison terms for the 2012 convictions. The court also revoked Defendant's probation terms for the 2008 convictions, and imposed presumptive, concurrent prison sentences. The court ordered the prison terms for the 2008 convictions to run concurrently with the prison terms for the 2012 convictions.
¶4 The State moved for reconsideration of the court's sentencing orders pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3, arguing that Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-708(C) required Defendant's prison terms for the 2008 convictions to run consecutively to the prison terms for the 2012 convictions. Over Defendant's objection, the court agreed, granted the motion to reconsider and resentenced Defendant to consecutive terms. Defendant timely appealed.
¶5 Defendant contends the court erred in concluding revocation of probation for the 2008 convictions was mandatory under § 13-708(C). Defendant argues that A.R.S. § 13-901(C), and not A.R.S § 13-708(C), governed the sentencing for the 2008 convictions, and that under § 13-901(C) the court had discretion to reinstate him on probation.
¶6 Interpretation of a statute is a question of law which we review de novo. See Zamora v. Reinstein, 185 Ariz. 272, 275, 915 P.2d 1227, 1230 (1996). To the extent statutes conflict, we try to "construe them in harmony." State v. Ray, 209 Ariz. 429, 431, ¶ 5, 104 P.3d 160, 162 (App. 2004). "We construe general and specific statutes that cover the same subject matter so as to give effect to both, if possible." Id.
&para;7 Here, while there is some overlap between A.R.S. § 13- 708(C) and A.R.S. § 13-901(C), the scope and application of the two statutes are different. Section 13-708(C) specifically applies to defendants on felony probation that are convicted of a new felony offense. Under these circumstances, a ...