Opinion ID: 1223959
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Aggravated Term of Imprisonment for Armed Robbery Conviction

Text: In determining defendant's armed robbery sentence, the trial court considered the following aggravating circumstances: (1) the crime was committed for pecuniary gain, (2) defendant was previously convicted of armed robbery in Coconino County and for two other murders, (3) the armed robbery resulted in a violent death, (4) defendant blamed the victim for the fact that he was killed, and (5) defendant had committed two other armed robbery murders shortly before this one. The trial court considered defendant's age and lack of significant prior criminal history as mitigating circumstances. As a result, the trial court sentenced defendant to the maximum term, twenty one years. Defendant argues that (1) the trial court should not have considered his Coconino County convictions because the crimes were committed after the Drury offenses, and (2) the trial court erred by finding pecuniary gain as an aggravating factor because it is an element of armed robbery. Prior Crimes. The trial court may consider as aggravating circumstances prior convictions for offenses regardless of the order in which the underlying crimes occurred or the order in which the convictions were entered. Gretzler, 135 Ariz. at 57 n. 2, 659 P.2d at 16 n. 2 (regarding death sentence); see also Williams, 183 Ariz. at 383, 904 P.2d at 452 (That a defendant had been found guilty of other lawless acts of violence is relevant to his character, whether the acts occurred before or after the murder.). Because defendant was convicted in Coconino County before he was sentenced for the Drury armed robbery, the trial court properly considered those convictions as an aggravating circumstance during sentencing. Double-Counting Pecuniary Gain. The legislature may establish a sentencing scheme in which an element of a crime could also be used for enhancement and aggravation purposes. State v. Lara, 171 Ariz. 282, 285, 830 P.2d 803, 806 (1992) (vacating, because of healthy respect for stare decisis,  court of appeals' holding that essential and irreducible element of crime cannot serve to aggravate crime it defines). Further, this court has stated that pecuniary gain is not synonymous with robbery. State v. Schad, 163 Ariz. 411, 420, 788 P.2d 1162, 1171 (1989) (reviewing death sentence), aff'd, 501 U.S. 624, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 161, 692 P.2d 991, 1010 (1984) (reviewing death sentence). In Carriger, this court explained, To prove robbery, the state must show a taking of property from the victim; to prove pecuniary gain, the state must show the actor's motivation was the expectation of pecuniary gain. 143 Ariz. at 161, 692 P.2d at 1010 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). This court has rejected the argument that finding pecuniary gain as an aggravating circumstance is unconstitutional where it repeats an element of first degree felony murder based on an underlying armed robbery. State v. Kemp, 185 Ariz. 52, 65, 912 P.2d 1281, 1294, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 117, 136 L.Ed.2d 68 (1996); State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155, 163-65, 823 P.2d 22, 30-32 (1991) (holding there is no double-counting of an element of robbery when the State proves pecuniary gain as an aggravating factor). Defendant's challenge to the use of pecuniary gain as an aggravating circumstance is limited to his sentence for armed robbery. Although prior cases discuss challenges to death sentences, the death sentences were based on felony murders involving armed robberies, and the legal principle is the same. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in considering pecuniary gain as an aggravating circumstance in determining an armed robbery sentence.