Court Opinion

ID: 9584722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:52:02.601784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:50.164781
License: Public Domain

MARTONE, Justice,
concurring.
¶ 11 I continue to adhere to the view that State v. Tarango, 185 Ariz. 208, 914 P.2d 1300 (1996) is wrongly decided. See Tarango, 185 Ariz. at 213, 914 P.2d at 1305 (Mar-tone, J., dissenting). I do not repeat that dissent here but simply note that the legislature would never have required flat time for a first-time drug or sex offender but .have allowed for less than flat time for a second or third-time drug or sex offender. Nevertheless, assuming, as we must, the validity of Tarango, the legislature’s rejection of it can be applied only prospectively, and not retroactively. In short, the legislature can correct for the future, but not for the past.
¶ 12 I therefore concur in the opinion and judgment of the court.