Opinion ID: 1036031
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proper standard of review and

Text: constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-756(A) ¶66 Benson argues that the above-articulated abuse-of-discretion standard is “more deferential” and yields a different result than the abuseof-discretion standard outlined in a footnote in State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 297 n.18, 660 P.2d 1208, 1224 n.18 (1983). We rejected this argument in Cota, 229 Ariz. at 153 ¶ 91, 272 P.3d at 1044 (“[T]he standard . . . is now mandated by § 13–756(A), which was enacted after Chapple.”). ¶67 Benson also contends that the abuse-of-discretion standard under § 13-756(A) violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it fails to provide for “meaningful independent review” as required by Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). We have repeatedly rejected this argument. See Rose, 231 Ariz. at 515 ¶ 71, 297 P.3d at 921; Hausner, 230 Ariz. at 80 ¶ 84, 280 P.3d at 624; Cota, 229 Ariz. at 153 ¶ 92, 272 P.3d at 1044. 18 STATE v. TRENT CHRISTOPHER BENSON Opinion of the Court