Case Name: STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Rodney Christopher JONES, Appellant.
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1
Jurisdiction: Arizona
Decision Date: 2018-06-26
Citations: 424 P.3d 447
Docket Number: No. 1 CA-CR 16-0703
Parties: STATE of Arizona, Appellee,
v.
Rodney Christopher JONES, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 424
Pages: 447–454

Head Matter:
STATE of Arizona, Appellee,
v.
Rodney Christopher JONES, Appellant.
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0703
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.
FILED June 26, 2018
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, By Michael Valenzuela, Dominic Emil Draye, Counsel for Appellee
Craig Williams, Attorney at Law, PLLC, Prescott Valley, By Craig Williams, Counsel for Appellant
Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, By Sarah L. Mayhew, Amicus Curiae
Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Judge Thomas C. Kleinschmidt joined, and to which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones dissented.
The Honorable Thomas C. Kleinschmidt, retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, Judge:
¶ 1 Rodney Jones appeals his convictions and sentences for one count each of possession of the narcotic drug cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. Jones asserts the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to dismiss after determining he was not immune from prosecution under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 36-2801 to -2819 (2014). We hold that AMMA does not immunize Jones from prosecution for the use and possession of cannabis under the circumstances presented here, and affirm Jones's convictions and sentences.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2 The relevant facts are undisputed. In March 2013, Jones was found in possession of a jar containing 0.050 ounces of hashish. At the time, Jones was a registered qualifying patient using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Jones was later indicted on one count each of possession of the narcotic drug cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia-the jar containing the cannabis. He moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the indictment was deficient as a matter of law because his valid AMMA card provided an absolute defense.
The motion was denied following an evidentiary hearing.
¶ 3 Jones waived his right to a jury trial and, in September 2016, was convicted as charged. The following month, Jones was sentenced as a non-dangerous, non-repetitive offender to concurrent presumptive terms of 2.5 years' imprisonment for possession of a narcotic drug and one year for possession of drug paraphernalia and given credit for 366 days' presentence incarceration. Jones timely appealed, and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1) (2018), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A)(1) (2010).
DISCUSSION
¶ 4 Jones appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss. We review an order denying a motion to dismiss criminal charges for an abuse of discretion and will reverse if the court "misapplies the law or exercises its discretion based on incorrect legal principles." State v. Smith , 242 Ariz. 98, 104, ¶ 22, 393 P.3d 159, 165 (App. 2017) (citing State v. Mangum , 214 Ariz. 165, 167, ¶ 6, 150 P.3d 252, 254 (App. 2007) ) (quoting State v. Slover , 220 Ariz. 239, 242, ¶ 4, 204 P.3d 1088, 1091 (App. 2009) ). We review the interpretation and application of statutes de novo . State v. Nixon , 242 Ariz. 242, 243, ¶ 5, 394 P.3d 667, 668 (App. 2017) (citing State v. Carver , 227 Ariz. 438, 441, ¶ 8, 258 P.3d 256, 259 (App. 2011) ). Because AMMA was voter-initiated, our primary objective is "to give effect to the intent of the electorate." Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt , 237 Ariz. 119, 122, ¶ 6, 347 P.3d 136, 139 (2015) (quoting State v. Gomez , 212 Ariz. 55, 57, ¶ 11, 127 P.3d 873, 875 (2006) ); see also Pedersen v. Bennett , 230 Ariz. 556, 558, ¶ 7, 288 P.3d 760, 762 (2012) ("[C]ourts liberally construe initiative requirements and do not interfere with the people's right to initiate laws 'unless the Constitution expressly and explicitly makes any departure from initiative filing requirements fatal.' ") (quoting Kromko v. Superior Court , 168 Ariz. 51, 58, 811 P.2d 12, 19 (1991) ).
¶ 5 In construing a statute, we read its words in context and will ascribe a meaning that gives effect to all relevant provisions and avoids an unconstitutional result. See Stambaugh v. Killian , 242 Ariz. 508, 509, ¶ 7, 398 P.3d 574, 575 (2017) (citing David C. v. Alexis S. , 240 Ariz. 53, 55, ¶ 9, 375 P.3d 945, 947 (2016) ; J.D. v. Hegyi , 236 Ariz. 39, 40-41, ¶ 6, 335 P.3d 1118, 1119-20 (2014) ); State v. Lindner , 227 Ariz. 69, 70, ¶ 6, 252 P.3d 1033, 1034 (App. 2010). "If the statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis." Stambaugh , 242 Ariz. at 509, ¶ 7, 398 P.3d at 575 (quoting Wade v. Ariz. State Ret. Sys. , 241 Ariz. 559, 561, ¶ 10, 390 P.3d 799, 801 (2017) ).
¶ 6 The parties agree hashish is a form of cannabis distinguishable from the green leafy substance commonly referred to as marijuana. They likewise agree cannabis is classified as a narcotic drug and that its possession is generally prohibited under Arizona's criminal code. See A.R.S. § 13-3401(20)(w) (classifying cannabis as a narcotic drug); -3408(A)-(B) (proscribing the knowing possession or use of a narcotic drug as a class four felony); Bollander , 110 Ariz. at 87, 515 P.2d at 332. The parties also acknowledge AMMA generally protects a registered qualifying patient from arrest, prosecution, or penalty arising out of the medical use of "marijuana" if that patient does not possess more than the allowable amount-2.5 ounces of "usable marijuana." See A.R.S. § 36-2801(1)(a)(i), (8), -2811(B)(1). Useable marijuana is statutorily defined as "the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant." A.R.S. § 36-2801(15).
¶ 7 The parties disagree as to whether hashish is included within AMMA's immunities. Jones argues hashish is a preparation of the marijuana plant and, because he possessed less than 2.5 ounces of hashish, he was immune from prosecution for its possession. The State argues possession and use of cannabis is not protected by AMMA because it is neither marijuana nor a preparation thereof, but "is merely [the] separati[on] [of] one part of the plant from another."
¶ 8 Under the AMMA:
A registered qualifying patient . is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denial of any right or privilege . [f]or the registered qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter, if the registered qualifying patient does not possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana.
A.R.S. § 36-2811(B)(1) ; see also Reed-Kaliher , 237 Ariz. at 122, ¶ 8, 347 P.3d at 139. AMMA defines marijuana to include "all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis, whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant." A.R.S. § 36-2801(8).
¶ 9 The State argues that by not specifically including extracted resin within its description of immunized marijuana, AMMA adopts the "preexisting law distinguishing between cannabis and marijuana." We agree. We construe statutory language in light of existing understanding. "Technical words and phrases and those which have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law shall be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning." A.R.S. § 1-213 (2016). "When administrative and judicial interpretations have settled the meaning of an existing statutory provision, repetition of the same language in a new statute indicates, as a general matter, the intent to incorporate the administrative and judicial interpretations as well." Bragdon v. Abbott , 524 U.S. 624, 645, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed.2d 540 (1998) ; see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts , 322 (2012) ("If a statute uses words or phrases that have already received authoritative construction . they are to be understood according to that construction."); id. at 327 ("Repeals by implication are disfavored.").
¶ 10 According to our supreme court, hashish is " 'the resin extracted' from the marijuana plant," criminalized as cannabis, a narcotic drug, and distinct from marijuana. Bollander , 110 Ariz. at 87, 515 P.2d at 332. "[T]he legislature has recognized hashish and marijuana as two distinct forms of cannabis.... but marijuana alone has been singled out for separate treatment under our statutes." Id. We have held that our legislature's differing treatment of hashish and marijuana is to be attributed to the great potency of the former, rendering it "susceptible to serious and extensive abuse." State v. Floyd, 120 Ariz. 358, 360, 586 P.2d 203, 205 (App. 1978).
¶ 11 AMMA is silent as to hashish. Prior understanding of the pertinent words strongly indicates that AMMA in no way immunizes the possession or use of hashish.
¶ 12 That AMMA immunizes medical use of a mixture or preparation of the marijuana plant does not immunize hashish. "Mixture or preparation" means the combining of marijuana with non-marijuana elements to make "consumables" such as brownies and the like. A.R.S. § 36-2801(15). Hashish, by contrast, is processed from the separated or extracted resin.
¶ 13 The dissent, citing State ex rel. Montgomery v. Woodburn ex rel. Cty. of Maricopa , 231 Ariz. 215, 216, 292 P.3d 201, 202 (App. 2012), notes that the language of a voter initiative is determinative if it is clear and unequivocal. There is, in AMMA, no clear and unequivocal language immunizing hashish. If the drafters wanted to immunize the possession of hashish they should have said so. We cannot conclude that Arizona voters intended to do so.
¶ 14 We cannot speculate that the voters, in allowing the limited use of marijuana to ameliorate patients' suffering and distress, would, if they also intended to similarly immunize the use of hashish, have allowed the same quantity of narcotics as of the relatively benign flowers of the marijuana plant.
CONCLUSION
¶ 15 Jones's convictions and sentences are affirmed.
Hashish is widely recognized as " 'the resin extracted' from the marijuana plant." State v. Bollander , 110 Ariz. 84, 87, 515 P.2d 329, 332 (1973). Cannabis is defined within the criminal code as "[t]he resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin," and "[e]very compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol." A.R.S. § 13-3401(4).
Jones suggests the definitions contained within the criminal code and those within AMMA conflict, and, because the provisions of AMMA are more recently enacted, they control. However, we conclude AMMA and the criminal code may be read together. See Berndt v. Ariz. Dep't of Corrs. , 238 Ariz. 524, 528, ¶ 11, 363 P.3d 141, 145 (App. 2015) (citing Baker v. Gardner , 160 Ariz. 98, 101, 770 P.2d 766, 769 (1988) ("Only if two statutes truly conflict do we apply the more recent or more specific provision and disregard the other."). The criminal code proscribes the use and possession of narcotic drugs derived from the marijuana plant. AMMA protects a medical user from prosecution and conviction for using marijuana if the patient proves, by a preponderance of evidence, his actions "fall within the range of immune action." State v. Fields ex rel. Cty. of Pima , 232 Ariz. 265, 269, ¶ 14-15, 304 P.3d 1088, 1092 (App. 2013) (citing Fid. Sec. Life Ins. v. Ariz. Dep't of Ins. , 191 Ariz. 222, 225, ¶ 9, 954 P.2d 580, 583 (1998) ; State v. Rhymes , 129 Ariz. 56, 57, 628 P.2d 939, 940 (1981) ); see also Reed-Kaliher , 237 Ariz. at 123, ¶ 15-17, 347 P.3d at 140. Arizona law generally criminalizes the use or possession of marijuana and hashish; we here are concerned then only with the breadth of the immunity from prosecution available under AMMA.
As expressed by counsel for Amicus in oral argument, "What AMMA does is AMMA establishes that for these people with these debilitating conditions marijuana in any preparation is medicine." (Emphasis added.) Jones's opening brief states, "Per the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), codified as A.R.S. § 36-2801, the use of marijuana and 'any mixture or preparation thereof' was decriminalized for medical use." (Emphasis added.)
Cf. Colo. Const. art. XVIII, § 16 : "Personal Use and Regulation of Marijuana," expressly legalizing hashish ("marijuana" includes "the resin extracted from any part of the plant .") and Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-43.4-901(4)(f) (2016), restricting the sale of hashish (elsewhere defined as a "retail marijuana product") in a single transaction to a fraction of that allowed for marijuana, obviously because of the greater potency of hashish.