State v. Gonzales, 687 P.2d 1267 (Ariz. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Gonzales, 687 P.2d 1267 (Ariz. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2001 · …unless a statute provides otherwise, 'it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date. at p. 1268 ✓
41 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County (arizctapp, 2001-02-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2001 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
unless a statute provides otherwise, 'it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Davis
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
The court’s imposition of six months for the misdemeanor possession charge was illegal because, by requiring Davis to serve the six months of jail time concurrently with imprisonment in the DOC, the court imposed a sentence that is incompatible with the applicable sentencing statute, § 13-707(A).1 See State v. Gonzales, 141 Ariz. 512, 513 (1984) (sentence inconsistent with sentencing statute is illegal).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Greenway (2×)
Ariz. · 1991 · confidence medium
To end a person's life just so that individual cannot testify against a defendant shows an utter and "complete lack of understanding of the value of a human life." Correll, 148 Ariz. at 481 , 715 P.2d at 734 (citing State v. Smith, 141 Ariz. at 512, 687 P.2d at 1267 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Noriega (2×)
Ariz. · 1984 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. State v. Gonzales, 141 Ariz. 512, 513 , 687 P.2d 1267, 1268 (1984).
discussed Cited "see" State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa
Ariz. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Gonzales, 141 Ariz. 512, 513 (1984) (holding that a statute “will not govern events that occurred before its effective date” unless the statute states 6 STATE V.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Montes (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Gonzales, 141 Ariz. 512, 513 , 687 P.2d 1267, 1268 (1984) (determining sua sponte if new statute applied to ease); see also State v. Towery, 204 Ariz. 386, ¶ 8 , 64 P.3d 828, 831-32 (2003), quoting Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 321 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (conviction final when ‘“a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied’ ”).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Salazar (2×)
Ariz. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Gonzales, 141 Ariz. 512 , 687 P.2d 1267 (1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Fallon (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See A.R.S. § 1-244; see also, State v. Gonzales, 141 Ariz. 512 , 687 P.2d 1267 (1984); State v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 422 , 678 P.2d 1386 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The STATE of Arizona, Appellant,
v.
Guadalupe Montano GONZALES, Appellee
6317.
Arizona Supreme Court.
Sep 13, 1984.
687 P.2d 1267
Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., Bruce M. Ferg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Stephen D. Neely, Pima County Atty., Tucson, for appellant., Kelly C. Knop, Tucson, for appellee.
Hays, Feldman, Holohan, Gordon, Cameron.
Cited by 19 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 59%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Arizona (1)

Lead Opinion

HAYS, Justice.

Appellee, Guadalupe Montano Gonzales, was convicted of dangerous or deadly assault by a prisoner. See A.R.S. § 13-1206. Appellee was sentenced to 11.25 years imprisonment. Gonzales did not appeal his conviction. The state appealed to the court of appeals, alleging that the sentence imposed was illegal. We granted the motion to transfer the case to this court. See 17 A.R.S. Arizona Rules of Supreme Court, rule 47(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4032.

At the time of the crime and at the time of sentencing, A.R.S. § 13-1206 provided for a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole for twenty-five years. The sentencing court determined that the mandatory sentencing provision of the statute was unconstitutional. The sentencing court imposed a lesser sentence.

The state argues that the sentence imposed by the sentencing court is illegal. We agree. The sentencing court was incorrect to conclude that former A.R.S. § 13-1206 was unconstitutional. See State v. Garcia, 141 Ariz. 97, 685 P.2d 734 (1984). The sentence is therefore vacated.

While this case was pending on appeal, the legislature amended A.R.S. § 13-1206. The statute now makes this crime a class-three felony, and the mandatory life sentence provision has been stricken from the statute. Although not addressed by either party, we must determine whether Gonzales is to be resentenced pursuant to the provisions of former A.R.S. § 13-1206 or the current version of that statute.

Unless a statute provides otherwise, “it will not govern events that occurred before its effective date.” State v. Coconino County Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 422, 427, 678 P.2d 1386, 1391 (1984). See also A.R.S. § 1-244. We find no provision indicating that the current version of A.R.S. § 13-1206 was intended to apply to events that occurred before its effective date. A.R.S. § 1-246 provides:

When the penalty for an offense is prescribed by one law and altered by a subsequent law, the penalty of such second law shall not be inflicted for a breach of the law committed before the second took effect, but the offender shall be punished under the law in force when the offense was committed.

Sentence vacated. Remanded to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

HOLOHAN, C.J., GORDON, V.C.J., and CAMERON, J., concur.

Dissent

FELDMAN, Justice,

dissenting,

I dissent from the result reached by the court. My views on the unconstitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-604.01 are set forth in my dissent in State v. Garcia, 141 Ariz. 97, 685 P.2d 734 (1984) and State v. McNair, 141 Ariz. 475, 687 P.2d 1230 (1984). In addition, in the case at bench the trial judge who heard all the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime of which defendant was convicted, believed the imposition of a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole for twenty-five years[*514] was so excessive as to violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In my view, therefore, the statute is both unconstitutional on its face and unconstitutionally applied in the case at bench. I would affirm the sentence imposed by the trial judge.