Opinion ID: 1195082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defects Allegedly Requiring New Aggravation/Mitigation Hearing

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a new aggravation/mitigation hearing on remand, thereby depriving him of the right to present evidence prior to sentencing. In denying defendant's motion, the judge relied on our prior opinion, in which we stated that the trial court need not repeat the aggravation/mitigation hearing. State v. Schackart, 175 Ariz. 494, 499, 858 P.2d 639, 644 (1993). He nevertheless advised defense counsel that they could submit any material or in the way, say, of an offer of proof with respect to mitigating factors so that your record will be complete. He further explained that this offer of proof could include an affidavit regarding who the witnesses would be and what they would say. Two weeks later, when counsel asked for a clarification of what the offer could contain, the judge replied, The only thing I can think of just offhand that would be relevant is what happened between 1985 and now. That's essentially his DOC record and what he's been doing for the last nine years.