Court Opinion

ID: 9627398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:43:06.547349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:45.736753
License: Public Domain

FELDMAN, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinion upholds the constitutionality of this statute by applying the three step analysis required by Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). I believe that analysis is useful only as a starting point in this rather unusual case. The majority concludes that the legislature has the power to prescribe severely enhanced punishment for crimes committed by a prisoner. Under the test used in Solem this is no doubt true, but I believe the majority has overlooked a more important issue hidden by the abstract principle of enhanced punishment.
Defendant was charged under A.R.S. § 13-1206, entitled “Dangerous or deadly assault by prisoner,” a statute unique in our criminal code.1 All other felonies fall within one of six classifications which determine the severity of the range of punishment which may be applied by the court. A.R.S. §§ 13-701 and 702. In all other felonies, including first degree murder (A.R.S. § 13-1105), the trial court is permitted to exercise some discretion in sentencing within the range set by the legislature. See A.R.S. §§ 13-601, et seq. and 13-701, et seq.2 With regard to 13-1206, however, there is neither range nor discretion, only an absolute requirement that upon conviction the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for a period of twenty-five years and that such term be consecutive to all other sentences. I dissent because I ■ believe that eonstitu-tional principle forbids the legislature from depriving the judicial branch of government of discretion to consider either the nature of the act committed or the nature of the criminal.
In my view, it is not possible to determine in the abstract whether a punishment required by statute is proportionate. The court must make that determination in light of the actual facts and the defendant’s individual culpability. People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441, 479, 194 Cal.Rptr. 390, 414, 668 P.2d 697, 721 (1983). This view is supported by the language used by the United States Supreme Court in Solem v. Helm, supra; the Court stated that it was impossible to hold that a penalty was per se constitutional. Any penalty might be unconstitutional in given circumstances. Solem v. Helm, 103 S.Ct. at 3009-10. The Supreme Court cautions us that:
Reviewing courts ... should grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishment for crimes, as well as to the discretion that trial courts possess in sentencing convicted criminals.
Id. at 3009 (emphasis supplied).
If proportionality is the issue, it cannot be judged by simply referring to the title of the statute under which the defendant has been charged and convicted. Courts must also consider the facts of the crime, the totality of circumstances which surround the act, the motive, the manner of commission, the extent of defendant’s culpability and the consequences or harm brought about by his acts. People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d at 479, 194 Cal.Rptr. at 413, 668 P.2d at 720. The court must consider too, the “nature of the offender” and in doing *105so must look at concrete facts rather than abstractions. The inquiry “focuses on the particular person before the court, and asks whether the punishment is grossly disproportionate” to his “individual culpability.” This is to be determined by reference to “such factors as his age, prior criminality, personal characteristics, and state of mind.” Id. at 479, 194 Cal.Rptr. at 413-14, 668 P.2d at 720-21. This concept, too, has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 3377, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). Although dealing with the death penalty, I believe the principles set forth in Enmund are applicable to all felonies, certainly those which require punishment as severe as that before us in the case at bench.
The focus must be on [defendant’s individual] culpability ... for we insist on ‘individualized consideration as a constitutional requirement ... ’, which means that we must focus on ‘relevant facets of the character and record of the individual offender.’
Id. (citations omitted).
The only conclusion which may be drawn from the foregoing is that, within rational limits set by the legislature, the trial courts must be given the power to consider the facts and tailor the punishment to fit both the crime and the criminal. A.R.S. § 13-1206 not only inhibits this function, it prohibits it and requires the court to apply a specific punishment to all cases that fit under the label of the statute no matter what the real facts may be.
It is possible, I suppose, to draft a statute so narrow as to insure that all those convicted deserve a single, specific punishment. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bryant, 239 Pa.Super. 43, 361 A.2d 350 (1976), upholding a life sentence for crime of assault by a life prisoner. That is not the type of case before us. We have previously upheld this very statute on the basis of an analysis of “significant” factors which include the “prior criminal record of the defendant and defendant’s intent or the actual harm caused by defendant’s conduct.” State v. Fears, 126 Ariz. 597, 598, 617 P.2d 763, 764 (1980), explaining the basis for decision in the previous cases of State v. Mulalley, 127 Ariz. 92, 618 P.2d 586 (1980) and State v. Marquez, 127 Ariz. 98, 618 P.2d 592 (1980).
Indeed, when analyzed under this two-pronged standard, the true facts of this case illustrate the vice of imposing a single mandatory punishment on all those who may be convicted. Defendant’s prior criminal record consisted of a plea bargained conviction of two counts of theft (A.R.S. § 13-1802) after he had been captured in 1980 on the roof of a store in San Luis, Arizona with a small amount of merchandise. He received two concurrent five year sentences as a non-dangerous, non-repetitive offender. He had no prior criminal history. At the time of the theft he was illegally in this country.
According to the presentence report defendant attempted suicide while serving at the Arizona State Prison. A psychological evaluation referred to several episodes of “apparently psychotic behavior, with delusions of a religious nature that led to serious attempts at suicide.” A history of “alcohol abuse” was reported. “The most likely diagnosis would be paranoid schizophrenia with secondary depression.” The stresses precipitating the psychotic episodes were thought to be (1) loneliness in a strange country; (2) inability to communicate with his family in Sonora (defendant has a wife, six children, twenty-one brothers and sisters and an eighty-five year old father; he is illiterate in his only language, Spanish); (3) inability to communicate with those around him (because he speaks only Spanish).
At some time the defendant was transferred to the Fort Grant Training Facility, where the events leading to his present conviction took place. On June 26, 1982 he walked away from the prison compound. He was trailed and eventually spotted near the road about 300 yards from the southern perimeter of the prison property. He was standing near a mesquite tree on a knoll about six feet above an arroyo. Five offi*106cers approached him. In both English and Spanish they ordered him to drop his “weapon” and surrender. He wagged the 20 inch long metal bar he was holding and told the officers not to come nearer or he would kill them. He responded to the officers’ orders by saying “no.” He then said such things as “Tell him to shoot me” (referring to the officers with guns), “I’m going to die like a man. He’s going to have to shoot me.” “I’ll kill the first one that comes up here.” [TR at 34].
The testimony was that four officers approached and formed a semi-circle about ten feet or so in front of the defendant, while a fifth, unarmed officer stood farther away. Lt. Davis, a weapons specialist trained in hostage negotiation, was armed with a Ruger Mini 14 semi-automatic rifle; two other officers had .38 caliber Smith & Wesson pistols drawn. The fourth officer, standing slightly behind and to the side of Lt. Davis, was unarmed. This officer initially thought defendant had a machete but soon noticed that the instrument was a metal bar with which defendant “could really hurt me if l went any closer.” [TR 35, emphasis supplied]. One of the armed officers agreed that he only got as close to defendant as he thought was safe under the circumstances. [TR at 69].
The stand-off continued for some ten to fifteen minutes in the flood lights emma-nating from the officers’ vehicle parked on the road nearby. During this time each officer apparently shouted orders five or more times, that the defendant drop his weapon. The defendant responded by threatening to “kill” the officers and, more frequently, by challenging them to kill him. Toward the end of the stand-off Lt. Davis shot a round from his rifle into the air. Defendant paused, challenged the officer to kill him and then continued wagging the bar. A few moments later an officer went to the vehicle and returned with a tear gas cannister. Lt. Davis then took the cannis-ter, approached within about six feet of the defendant, and sprayed the gas toward the defendant. During this maneuver, Lt. Davis testified that he felt he was the focus of the defendant’s attention and that he was quite apprehensive — “I felt more like he [the defendant] was getting ready to come after me than he was going to throw it [the bar].” [TR at 107]. Lt. Davis was thus ready to use the semi-automatic rifle he had in his left hand. The gas took its effect. Defendant blinked, shook his head and dropped the bar [TR at 108]. He was rushed by two officers and taken to the ground (apparently without a struggle).
At his arraignment, defendant seemed to have little understanding of the charges. He believed that he had been already adjudged guilty and sentenced. He refused to sign any papers. The interpreter’s attempts to explain the proceedings did not register; defendant did not comprehend the proceedings. He could not plead, and the judge ultimately directed that the record show the defendant pled “not guilty.”
Defendant put on no defense. He offered nothing at the sentencing hearing. We have no way of knowing what more defendant might have shown in mitigation. There being no discretion or choice in sentence, defendant made no attempt to show further mitigating circumstances. What was established, however, would ordinarily have been considered in aggravation or mitigation of punishment. But under § 13-1206, unique in our books, it made no difference. Defendant received the same penalty as if, serving a life sentence for murder, he had escaped, stolen an automatic rifle, and tried his best to shoot the officers who were in pursuit.
In my view, a statute which prohibits the trial judge from considering the true facts of a crime offends the principles of Solem v. Helm and violates the “cruel and unusual punishment” proscriptions of both Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, § 15 of the Arizona Constitution. It also violates Article 3 of the Arizona Constitution which prohibits any department of government from exercising the powers “properly belonging to either of the others.” Making the punishment fit the crime and criminal is a judicial function. The legislative function *107is confined to setting the range and type of punishment.
It is ironic, and too late for this defendant, that this principle has probably come to the attention of the legislature. A.R.S. § 13-1206 was amended at the last legislative session and signed by the Governor on May 1, 1984. The offense has now been reduced to a class 3 felony with a range of enhanced punishment. The legislature has amended the statute but can do nothing to ameliorate a “cruel and unusual” punishment already imposed. We have both the power and the duty,
GORDON, Vice Chief Justice:
I concur with Justice Feldman’s dissent.

. See Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona 176 (1978) (This section "was neither recommended by the Code Commission nor modeled on any other recent Code revision"). Section 13-101 states, in part,
It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of the provisions of this title are:
4. To differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses and to prescribe proportionate penalties for each;
see also § 13-101(3).

. One other statute, A.R.S. § 13-604.01(A) (offenses committed while released from confinement) reaches the same result as § 13-1206, by means of enhancement of punishment and is subject to the same problems as § 13-1206.