Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Gomez

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 2006No. CR-05-0062-PRPublished

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

  1. Zinermon v. BurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Flemming v. NestorSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  4. Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API