Court Opinion

ID: 9791889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:20:07.795977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:39.246988
License: Public Domain

*508CAMERON,
Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority on the duress issue. However, I dissent from that part of the majority opinion refusing to correct the sentencing discrepancies apparent on the record. As I stated in State v. Dawson, “the result of the majority opinion is that a defendant and a prosecuting attorney may agree to an unlawfully lenient sentence that becomes final if the trial judge fails to correct it and if the state fails to appeal.” 164 Ariz. 278, 286, 792 P.2d 741, 749 (1990). That result has come to fruition in this case.
As noted by the majority, the defendant entered into a “stipulation and agreement” which allowed the court to find defendant guilty of 11 felony counts and which resulted in an unlawfully lenient sentence for defendant.
The majority holds that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to correct sentencing errors when the state fails to appeal or cross-appeal. I believe, however, that an illegal sentence is fundamental error. This court has subject matter jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence even though neither party raises the error. A.R.S. §§ 13-4035, -4036.
Because I believe that an illegally lenient sentence is fundamental error, I would set aside the stipulation and agreement, reverse the convictions and sentences, and remand and reinstate the original charges. The state and the defendant could then enter into another “stipulation and agreement” or go to trial on all counts. In any event, the trial court would be able to impose a legally sufficient sentence as the legislature has mandated.