illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error in Arizona

69 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 8 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (43)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Thuesgreen arizctapp · 2002 · cited in 31 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2003–2025 2 sentences 2025“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error that may be reversed on appeal, despite the lack of an objection in the trial court.” State v. Provenzino, 221 Ariz. 364, 369, ¶ 18 (App. 2009); State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). 4 STATE v. EPPINGER Decision of the Court ¶11 The jury’s domestic violence finding for the attempted sexual assault counts did not affect the consequences imposed for these convictions. 2023“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). ¶35 Section 13-116 prohibits the imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple offenses “when the defendant’s conduct” constitutes “a single act.” State v. Hampton, 213 Ariz. 167, 182, ¶ 64 (2006).	31	31
State v. Martinezgreen arizctapp · 2011 · cited in 10 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2013–2025 2 sentences 2024See State v. Martinez, 226 Ariz. 221, 224, ¶ 17 (App. 2011). “[T]he imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” Id. ¶27 Section 13-116 prohibits consecutive sentences for multiple convictions for “[a]n act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws.” We “judge a defendant’s eligibility for consecutive sentences by considering the facts of each crime separately, subtracting from the factual transaction the evidence necessary to convict on the ultimate charge . . .” State v. Gordon, 161 Ariz. 308, 315 (1989). 2024See State v. Martinez, 226 Ariz. 221, 224, ¶ 17 (App. 2011). “[T]he imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” Id. ¶27 Section 13-116 prohibits consecutive sentences for multiple convictions for “[a]n act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws.” We “judge a defendant’s eligibility for consecutive sentences by considering the facts of each crime separately, subtracting from the factual transaction the evidence necessary to convict on the ultimate charge . . .” State v. Gordon, 161 Ariz. 308, 315 (1989).	10	10
State v. Hendersongreen ariz · 2005 · cited in 6 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2006–2018 2 sentences 2018Therefore, the Administrative Order did not apply to the issued bench warrant, id., and the assessment of the warrant fee constitutes fundamental error, State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (explaining that when a defendant fails to object to an error, this court reviews for fundamental error); Soria, 217 Ariz. at 102-03, ¶¶ 4, 7 (“[I]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.”). 2015Although Felix's failure to object that the aggravated assault does not qualify as a dangerous crime against children limits our review to fundamental error, see Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 19 , 115 P.3d at 607 , an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error, State v. McDonagh, 232 Ariz. 247, 249, ¶ 7 , 304 P.3d 212, 214 (App.2013).	6	6
State v. Coxgreen arizctapp · 2002 · cited in 5 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2002–2025 2 sentences 2025“An illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Cox, 201 Ariz. 464, 468, ¶ 13 (App. 2002). ¶18 “When the State seeks to use a prior conviction as a sentence enhancer . . . the State must first prove the existence of the prior conviction.” State v. McCann, 200 Ariz. 27, 31, ¶ 15 (2001). 2016Generally, “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2002) (citing State v. Cox, 201 Ariz. 464, 468, ¶ 13 (App. 2002)). ¶10 Arizona law provides “[a]n act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under both, but in no event may [the] sentences be other than concurrent.” A.R.S. § 13-116.	5	5
State v. Caniongreen arizctapp · 2000 · cited in 4 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2002–2014 2 sentences 2014Notwithstanding those arguments, “an illegal sentence can be reversed on appeal despite the lack of an objection.” State v. Canion, 199 Ariz. 227 , 230 ¶10, 16 P.3d 788, 791 (App 2000) (citing State v. Whitney, 151 Ariz. 113, 115 , 726 P.2d 210, 212 (App. 1985)); see also State v. Provenzino, 221 Ariz. 364 , 369 ¶ 18, 212 P.3d 56, 61 (App. 2009) (“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error that may be reversed on appeal, despite the lack of an objection in the trial court.”) (citing cases). 2014Notwithstanding those arguments, “an illegal sentence can be reversed on appeal despite the lack of an objection.” State v. Canion, 199 Ariz. 227 , 230 ¶10, 16 P.3d 788, 791 (App 2000) (citing State v. Whitney, 151 Ariz. 113, 115 , 726 P.2d 210, 212 (App. 1985)); see also State v. Provenzino, 221 Ariz. 364 , 369 ¶ 18, 212 P.3d 56, 61 (App. 2009) (“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error that may be reversed on appeal, despite the lack of an objection in the trial court.”) (citing cases).	4	4
State v. Gordongreen ariz · 1989 · cited in 6 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2024 2 sentences 2024See State v. Martinez, 226 Ariz. 221, 224, ¶ 17 (App. 2011). “[T]he imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” Id. ¶27 Section 13-116 prohibits consecutive sentences for multiple convictions for “[a]n act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws.” We “judge a defendant’s eligibility for consecutive sentences by considering the facts of each crime separately, subtracting from the factual transaction the evidence necessary to convict on the ultimate charge . . .” State v. Gordon, 161 Ariz. 308, 315 (1989). 2023To determine whether A.R.S. § 13-116 permits consecutive sentences, we apply the three- part test set forth in State v. Gordon, 161 Ariz. 308 (1989).	3	6
State v. Soriagreen arizctapp · 2007 · cited in 4 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2013–2018 2 sentences 2018"Generally, imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error." State v. Soria , 217 Ariz. 101 , 102, ¶ 4, 170 P.3d 710 , 711 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Munninger , 213 Ariz. 393 , 397, ¶ 11, 142 P.3d 701 , 705 (App. 2006) ). ¶ 4 The parties' arguments focus on the bench warrant fee imposed after Ayonayon's failure to appear at the status conference. 2018"Generally, imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error." State v. Soria , 217 Ariz. 101 , 102, ¶ 4, 170 P.3d 710 , 711 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Munninger , 213 Ariz. 393 , 397, ¶ 11, 142 P.3d 701 , 705 (App. 2006) ). ¶ 4 The parties' arguments focus on the bench warrant fee imposed after Ayonayon's failure to appear at the status conference.	3	4
State v. McDonaghgreen arizctapp · 2013 · cited in 4 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2015–2018 2 sentences 2018“To prevail under this standard of review, a defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” Id. ¶ 20. ¶17 “The failure to impose a sentence in conformity with mandatory sentencing statutes makes the resulting sentence illegal,” State v. Carbajal, 184 Ariz. 117, 118 (App. 1995), and the “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error,” State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2002); State v. McDonagh, 232 Ariz. 247, 249, ¶ 7 (App. 2013). “[I]f an illegal sentence has been imposed upon a lawful verdict or 2017The imposition of an improper or otherwise unauthorized fine “renders a criminal sentence illegal, and an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. McDonagh, 232 Ariz. 247, 248-49, ¶ 7 (App. 2013).	3	4
State v. Munningergreen arizctapp · 2006 · cited in 4 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2007–2018 2 sentences 2018"Generally, imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error." State v. Soria , 217 Ariz. 101 , 102, ¶ 4, 170 P.3d 710 , 711 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Munninger , 213 Ariz. 393 , 397, ¶ 11, 142 P.3d 701 , 705 (App. 2006) ). ¶ 4 The parties' arguments focus on the bench warrant fee imposed after Ayonayon's failure to appear at the status conference. 2018"Generally, imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error." State v. Soria , 217 Ariz. 101 , 102, ¶ 4, 170 P.3d 710 , 711 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Munninger , 213 Ariz. 393 , 397, ¶ 11, 142 P.3d 701 , 705 (App. 2006) ). ¶ 4 The parties' arguments focus on the bench warrant fee imposed after Ayonayon's failure to appear at the status conference.	3	4
State v. PROVENZINOgreen arizctapp · 2009 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2025 2 sentences 2025“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error that may be reversed on appeal, despite the lack of an objection in the trial court.” State v. Provenzino, 221 Ariz. 364, 369, ¶ 18 (App. 2009); State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). 4 STATE v. EPPINGER Decision of the Court ¶11 The jury’s domestic violence finding for the attempted sexual assault counts did not affect the consequences imposed for these convictions. 2014Notwithstanding those arguments, “an illegal sentence can be reversed on appeal despite the lack of an objection.” State v. Canion, 199 Ariz. 227 , 230 ¶10, 16 P.3d 788, 791 (App 2000) (citing State v. Whitney, 151 Ariz. 113, 115 , 726 P.2d 210, 212 (App. 1985)); see also State v. Provenzino, 221 Ariz. 364 , 369 ¶ 18, 212 P.3d 56, 61 (App. 2009) (“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error that may be reversed on appeal, despite the lack of an objection in the trial court.”) (citing cases).	3	3
State of Arizona v. Mark Noriki Kasicgreen arizctapp · 2011 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2012–2018 2 sentences 2012See State v. Kasic, 228 Ariz. 228, 231, ¶ 15 , 265 P.3d 410, 413 (2011) (“imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.”). 2012See State v. Kasic, 228 Ariz. 228, 231, ¶ 15 , 265 P.3d 410, 413 (2011) (“imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.”).	3	3
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. AMERICAN SUPPORTgreen ariz · 2005 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2005–2006 2 sentences 2006See Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 1 , 115 P.3d at 603 ; see also State v. Aleman, 210 Ariz. 232, ¶ 24 , 109 P.3d 571, 579 (App.2005); State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, ¶ 4 , 54 P.3d 368, 369 (App.2002) (“[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error” that is not waived by defendant’s failure to raise it). ¶ 9 Fundamental error is “ ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to [the] defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’ ” Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 19 , 115 P 2006See Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 1 , 115 P.3d at 603 ; see also State v. Aleman, 210 Ariz. 232, ¶ 24 , 109 P.3d 571, 579 (App.2005); State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, ¶ 4 , 54 P.3d 368, 369 (App.2002) (“[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error” that is not waived by defendant’s failure to raise it). ¶ 9 Fundamental error is “ ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to [the] defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’ ” Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 19 , 115 P	3	3
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueiragreen arizctapp · 2014 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2020–2025 2 sentences 2025See State v. Pesqueria, 235 Ariz. 470, 478, ¶ 29 (App. 2014). 2020State v. Pesqueira, 235 Ariz. 470, 478, ¶ 29 (App. 2014).	2	2
State v. Whitneygreen arizctapp · 1985 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Notwithstanding those arguments, “an illegal sentence can be reversed on appeal despite the lack of an objection.” State v. Canion, 199 Ariz. 227 , 230 ¶10, 16 P.3d 788, 791 (App 2000) (citing State v. Whitney, 151 Ariz. 113, 115 , 726 P.2d 210, 212 (App. 1985)); see also State v. Provenzino, 221 Ariz. 364 , 369 ¶ 18, 212 P.3d 56, 61 (App. 2009) (“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error that may be reversed on appeal, despite the lack of an objection in the trial court.”) (citing cases). 2014Notwithstanding those arguments, “an illegal sentence can be reversed on appeal despite the lack of an objection.” State v. Canion, 199 Ariz. 227 , 230 ¶10, 16 P.3d 788, 791 (App 2000) (citing State v. Whitney, 151 Ariz. 113, 115 , 726 P.2d 210, 212 (App. 1985)); see also State v. Provenzino, 221 Ariz. 364 , 369 ¶ 18, 212 P.3d 56, 61 (App. 2009) (“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error that may be reversed on appeal, despite the lack of an objection in the trial court.”) (citing cases).	2	2
State v. Joynergreen arizctapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009State v. Joyner, 215 Ariz. 134, ¶ 5 , 158 P.3d 263, 266 (App.2007). ¶ 5 At sentencing, the trial court entered an order requiring Lewandowski to pay $5,400 in fines and surcharges, a $25 indigent assessment fee, and a $20 time payment fee. 2009State v. Joyner, 215 Ariz. 134, ¶ 5 , 158 P.3d 263, 266 (App.2007). ¶ 5 At sentencing, the trial court entered an order requiring Lewandowski to pay $5,400 in fines and surcharges, a $25 indigent assessment fee, and a $20 time payment fee.	2	2
State v. Vargas-Burgosgreen arizctapp · 1989 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007And we have held that the “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, ¶4 , 54 P.3d 368, 369 (App. 2002); see also State v. Vargas-Burgos, 162 Ariz. 325, 327 , 783 P.2d 264, 266 (App.1989) (claim that sentence illegal not waived by failure to object in trial court). 2007And we have held that the “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, ¶4 , 54 P.3d 368, 369 (App. 2002); see also State v. Vargas-Burgos, 162 Ariz. 325, 327 , 783 P.2d 264, 266 (App.1989) (claim that sentence illegal not waived by failure to object in trial court).	2	2
State v. Huntergreen ariz · 1984 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 1 , 115 P.3d at 603 ; see also State v. Aleman, 210 Ariz. 232, ¶ 24 , 109 P.3d 571, 579 (App.2005); State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, ¶ 4 , 54 P.3d 368, 369 (App.2002) (“[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error” that is not waived by defendant’s failure to raise it). ¶ 9 Fundamental error is “ ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to [the] defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’ ” Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 19 , 115 P 2006See Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 1 , 115 P.3d at 603 ; see also State v. Aleman, 210 Ariz. 232, ¶ 24 , 109 P.3d 571, 579 (App.2005); State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, ¶ 4 , 54 P.3d 368, 369 (App.2002) (“[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error” that is not waived by defendant’s failure to raise it). ¶ 9 Fundamental error is “ ‘error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to [the] defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.’ ” Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 19 , 115 P	2	2
State v. Kinggreen ariz · 1988 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006In order to obtain reversal based on unobjected-to trial error, a defendant must show “both that fundamental error exists and that the error in [his or her] case caused ... prejudice.” Id. ¶ 20; see also State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424 , 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988); Hunter, 142 Ariz. at 90 , 688 P.2d at 982 . ¶ 10 As noted above, the trial court found as aggravating factors the infliction of serious physical injury to the victim, cruelty, commission of the offense for pecuniary gain, and serious emotional and mental harm to the victim. 2006In order to obtain reversal based on unobjected-to trial error, a defendant must show “both that fundamental error exists and that the error in [his or her] case caused ... prejudice.” Id. ¶ 20; see also State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424 , 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988); Hunter, 142 Ariz. at 90 , 688 P.2d at 982 . ¶ 10 As noted above, the trial court found as aggravating factors the infliction of serious physical injury to the victim, cruelty, commission of the offense for pecuniary gain, and serious emotional and mental harm to the victim.	2	2
State v. Ojedagreen ariz · 1989 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003See State v. Ojeda, 159 Ariz. 560 , 769 P.2d 1006 (1989). 2003See State v. Ojeda, 159 Ariz. 560 , 769 P.2d 1006 (1989).	2	2
State of Arizona v. Shawna Fordegreen ariz · 2014 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2016–2020 2 sentences 2020“An illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Forde, 233 Ariz. 543 , 574 ¶ 137 (2014). 2016“An illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Forde, 233 Ariz. 543, 574, ¶ 137 (2014). ¶6 The State posits that another felony conviction—which Moraga committed before the instant offenses, but to which he pleaded guilty after conviction in this case—could be considered as an alternative aggravating factor to justify the aggravated sentence for Count 3.	1	3
State v. Resendis-Felixgreen arizctapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See State v. Alire, 209 Ariz. 517, ¶ 7 , 105 P.3d 163, 165 (App.2005); State v. Munninger, 209 Ariz. 473, ¶¶ 8-10 , 104 P.3d 204, 208-09 (App.2005); State v. Timmons, 209 Ariz. 403, ¶ 5 , 103 P.3d 315, 318 (App.2005); Resendis-Felix, 209 Ariz. 292, ¶¶ 5-6 , 100 P.3d at 459 . 2005See State v. Alire, 209 Ariz. 517, ¶ 7 , 105 P.3d 163, 165 (App.2005); State v. Munninger, 209 Ariz. 473, ¶¶ 8-10 , 104 P.3d 204, 208-09 (App.2005); State v. Timmons, 209 Ariz. 403, ¶ 5 , 103 P.3d 315, 318 (App.2005); Resendis-Felix, 209 Ariz. 292, ¶¶ 5-6 , 100 P.3d at 459 .	1	2
State v. McCanngreen ariz · 2001 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025“An illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Cox, 201 Ariz. 464, 468, ¶ 13 (App. 2002). ¶18 “When the State seeks to use a prior conviction as a sentence enhancer . . . the State must first prove the existence of the prior conviction.” State v. McCann, 200 Ariz. 27, 31, ¶ 15 (2001). 2025“At that time, the presumption of regularity attaches . . . [but] [i]f the defendant presents some credible evidence to overcome the presumption, the State must fulfill its duty to establish that the prior conviction was constitutionally obtained.” Id.	1	1
State v. Hamptongreen ariz · 2006 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). ¶35 Section 13-116 prohibits the imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple offenses “when the defendant’s conduct” constitutes “a single act.” State v. Hampton, 213 Ariz. 167, 182, ¶ 64 (2006).	1	1
State v. Watsongreen arizctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Watson, 248 Ariz. 208, 214, ¶ 17 (App. 2020) (quoting State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2007)). ¶26 “Under Arizona’s sentencing scheme, once a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment available under [Arizona law].” State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, 584, ¶ 21 (2005); see also Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty fo	1	1
State v. Martinezgreen ariz · 2005 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Watson, 248 Ariz. 208, 214, ¶ 17 (App. 2020) (quoting State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2007)). ¶26 “Under Arizona’s sentencing scheme, once a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment available under [Arizona law].” State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, 584, ¶ 21 (2005); see also Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty fo	1	1
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen scotus · 2000 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Watson, 248 Ariz. 208, 214, ¶ 17 (App. 2020) (quoting State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2007)). ¶26 “Under Arizona’s sentencing scheme, once a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment available under [Arizona law].” State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, 584, ¶ 21 (2005); see also Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty fo	1	1
State v. Johnsongreen arizctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019State v. Johnson, 210 Ariz. 438, 440, ¶ 8 (App. 2005); see also State v. Todd, 244 Ariz. 374 , 382, ¶ 25 (App. 2018) ("We review de novo a trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences in accordance with A.R.S. § 13-116."). "[I]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error." State v. Martinez, 226 Ariz. 221, 224, ¶ 17 (App. 2011). ¶12 The State argues that Robertson waived any objection to consecutive sentencing, citing Rule 17.1(e)3 ("By pleading guilty or no contest in a noncapital case, a defendant waives the right to have the appellate courts review the proceeding	1	1
State v. Fernandezgreen arizctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Although Tapia did not raise this issue in his brief, an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error, and "we will not ignore [fundamental error] when we find it." State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, 554, ¶ 32 (App. 2007); see State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). ¶6 Under A.R.S. § 13-704(A) (2019), the presumptive sentence for a dangerous Class 2 felony is 10.5 years.	1	1
State v. Carbajalgreen arizctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018“To prevail under this standard of review, a defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice.” Id. ¶ 20. ¶17 “The failure to impose a sentence in conformity with mandatory sentencing statutes makes the resulting sentence illegal,” State v. Carbajal, 184 Ariz. 117, 118 (App. 1995), and the “[i]mposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error,” State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2002); State v. McDonagh, 232 Ariz. 247, 249, ¶ 7 (App. 2013). “[I]f an illegal sentence has been imposed upon a lawful verdict or	1	1
State v. Hawkinsgreen arizctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018An order of restitution is a sentence, State v. Hawkins, 134 Ariz. 403, 406 (App. 1982), and generally, an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.	1	1
In Re J.U.green arizctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018	1	1
State v. Glasselgreen ariz · 2005 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016	1	1
State v. Biblegreen ariz · 1993 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
State v. Smithgreen ariz · 2008 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014	1	1
State v. Christiangreen ariz · 2003 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013	1	1
State v. ZINSMEYERgreen arizctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013	1	1
State v. Lewandowskigreen arizctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012	1	1
State v. Urquidezgreen arizctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010	1	1
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examinersgreen arizctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007	1	1
State v. Aliregreen arizctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
Washington v. Recuencogreen scotus · 2006 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1

Also cited on this issue (1)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Hollenback green arizctapp · 2005	1	2007–2007

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-116 (19) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-120.21 (18) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-701 (18) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702 (17) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703 (16) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604 (15) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-105 (12) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1001 (9) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-705 (8) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1105 (7) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1203 (7) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-704 (7)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

AZ 69 (2002–2025) FL 3 (1981–1992)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check