Opinion ID: 1176477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: may a conviction for a single prior crime be used as two statutory aggravating factors?

Text: At the first sentencing hearing, aggravating and mitigating circumstances were considered. The trial court specifically found: (1) appellant had been previously convicted of an offense for which under Arizona Law a sentence of life imprisonment or death was imposable and (2) appellant had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence on another person, thus establishing the aggravating circumstances set forth in A.R.S. § 13-454(E)(1) and (2). [1] Both of these findings by the trial judge were based on evidence of a prior California conviction for the crime of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 years. Arnett I, 119 Ariz. 38, at 41, 579 P.2d 542, at 545 (1978). The trial judge found no mitigating circumstances and sentenced defendant to death. On appeal, defendant claimed that the California crime was not within the purview of the type of violent crime to be used to substantiate the imposition of the death penalty. We upheld the trial court's ruling in finding that this was the type of crime that could be considered as an aggravating circumstance in imposing the death penalty, and upheld the judgment and sentence of the trial court. Arnett I, 119 Ariz. at 51, 579 P.2d at 555. Later, pursuant to Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); Bell v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 637, 98 S.Ct. 2977, 57 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1978), and State v. Watson, 120 Ariz. 441, 586 P.2d 1253 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 924, 99 S.Ct. 1254, 59 L.Ed.2d 478 (1979), the defendant was resentenced, at which time he was allowed to present mitigating circumstances in addition to those in the statute. At the resentencing, the court found: I have considered the entire file and all matters which might weigh in your favor in mitigation. I incorporate all findings and conclusions made at your sentencing on September 10th, 1976 as they relate to aggravating circumstances, and I find that A.R.S. 13-454(E)(1) and (2) are present; that you have been convicted of another offense in the United States for which, under Arizona law, a sentence of life imprisonment was imposable, and that you have been previously convicted of a felony in the United States involving the use of violence on another person. On appeal from the resentencing, we reviewed the hearing to ensure that the trial court took into consideration every potential mitigating circumstance. We found: It is apparent that the court considered all matters presented in mitigation and did not find them sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Upon an independent review of the record, Richmond, supra, we agree with the sentence imposed. Arnett II, 125 Ariz. at 204, 608 P.2d at 781. We then reaffirmed defendant's conviction on appeal. Defendant now contends that using the one California conviction to establish two aggravating circumstances violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. We have stated: We hold that as a matter of law a robbery conviction constitutes an aggravating circumstance within the meaning of A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(2). On remand, the defendant's 1965 robbery conviction if proved by the state, may properly constitute two aggravating circumstances, A.R.S. §§ 13-703(F)(1) and (2). However, in its balancing of factors, the trial court may only weigh aggravating circumstances arising out of the 1965 robbery once so as to avoid any possibility of double punishment. State v. Tittle, 147 Ariz. 339, 345, 710 P.2d 449, 455 (1985). Even if, as the record indicates, the trial court found two aggravating circumstances arising out of a conviction for one crime, we need not set aside the death sentence. The trial court knew it was dealing with a single act when it found at least one aggravating circumstance. As we recently stated: In Arizona, the trial court must impose a sentence of death if it finds the existence of one statutory aggravating factor and does not find the existence of any mitigating factor (or one or more mitigating circumstances substantial enough to call for leniency). State v. Beaty, 158 Ariz. 232, 246-47, 762 P.2d 519, 533-34 (Ariz. 1988). Defendant's single prior conviction is an aggravating circumstance. The death penalty was properly applied because both the trial court and this court can find no mitigating circumstances which would call for leniency. Tittle, 147 Ariz. at 343, 710 P.2d at 453. We find no error.