State v. Schmidt
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BALES, Justice.
¶ 1 Under Arizona law, those convicted of a ciime are subject to longer sentences when certain aggravating factors are proved. We hold that a court may not, consistent with due process, increase a defendant’s maximum potential sentence based solely on a so-called “catch-all” aggravator, defined as “any other factors which the court may deem appropriate to the ends of justice.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-702(D)(13) (Supp.1991). 1
I
¶ 2 In April 1993, Michael Dimetrius Schmidt entered into an agreement under which he pled guilty to two of eight offenses charged in an…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn HausnerArizona Supreme Court · 2012
- State v. ZINSMEYERCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- State of Arizona v. Austin James BonfiglioArizona Supreme Court · 2013
- State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin LopezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
- State v. CoulterCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.