State v. Gomez
Arizona Supreme Court
1Dissent
BERCH, Vice Chief Justice,
dissenting.
¶ 33 I respectfully dissent. I disagree with my colleagues’ interpretation of the word “indicted” as meaning under pending indictment and would hold instead, as the court of appeals concluded, that A.R.S. § 13-901.01(B) means what it says: that one convicted of drug possession who has previously been indicted for a crime of violence is not automatically eligible for the benefit of probation. See State v. Gomez, 209 Ariz. 373, 376, ¶ 10, 102 P.3d 992, 995 (App.2004).
¶ 34 The legislature has the power to set the sentencing ranges for crimes. See State v.…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Zinermon v. BurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Flemming v. NestorSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.