State v. Baker

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TRAVIS CHRISTOPHER BAKER, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/09/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CR 09-0672 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-111266-001 DT The Honorable Lisa Ann Vandenberg, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General Phoenix By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section/Capital Litigation Section Sherri Tolar Rollison, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant J O H N S E N, Judge Phoenix ¶1 of Travis Christopher Baker was convicted of possession marijuana, a Class 1 misdemeanor. Although the superior court found Baker ineligible for mandatory probation because he had a prior suspended violent-crime Baker s unsupervised conviction, sentence probation. and Baker the court imposed appeals nevertheless ten the months of imposition of probation and requests resentencing pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-901.01 (2010). 1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 One week before Baker s trial, the State filed an Allegation of Prior Dangerous and/or Violent Convictions, in which it alleged Baker was ineligible for mandatory probation pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01(A) because of a prior conviction of a violent crime. Baker moved to strike arguing it was untimely and prejudicial. the allegation, The superior court deferred ruling until after trial. ¶3 At conviction, the the sentencing State hearing presented evidence following of Baker s Baker s previous conviction for assault causing physical injury, a violent crime within the meaning of A.R.S. § 13-901.03(B) (2010). 2 1 Absent material revisions after the date offense, we cite the statute s current version. 2 of The State an alleged A violent crime for this purpose is one that includes any criminal act that results in death or physical injury . . . . A.R.S. § 13-901.03(B). 2 nonetheless recommended the court place Baker on unsupervised probation. The presentence report recommended 12 months of supervised probation; defense counsel urged the court to impose 12 months of unsupervised probation. The court found that Baker s prior conviction precluded mandatory probation pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01(A), but suspended sentence and imposed a ten-month term of unsupervised probation. ¶4 We have jurisdiction of Baker s appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003). DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review. ¶5 We discretion. review determinations for abuse of State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, 216, ¶ 112, 84 P.3d 456, 481 (2004). sentencing sentencing Whether the superior court applied the correct statute, review de novo. however, is a question of law, which we State v. Hollenback, 212 Ariz. 12, 16, ¶ 12, 126 P.3d 159, 163 (App. 2005). B. The Superior Court Did Not Violate Arizona Law or Breach Baker s Constitutional Rights in Holding that His Prior Offense Precluded Mandatory Probation. ¶6 With some superior court to exceptions, suspend Arizona imposition of law requires sentence and the impose probation on one who is convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance. A.R.S. § 13-901.01. 3 The statute does not apply to a defendant violent crime, however. who has been convicted A.R.S. § 13-901.01(B). of a The procedure by which the State must allege a prior violent crime is set out in A.R.S. § 13-901.03(A), which provides: The allegation that the defendant committed a violent crime shall be charged in the indictment or information and admitted or found by the court. The court shall allow the allegation that the defendant committed a violent crime at any time before the date the case is actually tried unless the allegation is filed fewer than twenty days before the case is actually tried and the court finds on the record that the defendant was in fact prejudiced by the untimely filing and states the reasons for these findings. ¶7 Baker first argues the superior court should have barred the State s violent-crime allegation as untimely pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.03(A). When applying a statute, we look to its plain language and give meaning to each word and phrase so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant. State v. Larson, 222 Ariz. 341, 344, ¶ 14, 214 P.3d 429, 432 (App. 2009) (quoting Pinal Vista Props., L.L.C. v. Turnbull, 208 Ariz. 188, 190, ¶ 10, 91 P.3d 1031, 1033 (App. 2004)). ¶8 The statute provides that the court shall allow a violent-crime allegation filed within 20 days of trial unless it finds on the record that the defendant was in fact prejudiced by the untimely filing. A.R.S. 4 § 13-901.03(A). In the superior court, Baker argued he was prejudiced because he might have accepted a prior plea offer if he had known he would be ineligible for mandatory probation. Baker points to nothing in the record on appeal, however, showing that the plea offer he rejected was available to him as late as 20 days prior to trial or that the offer was preferable to disposition ultimately ordered by the court. the conviction and Nor on appeal does Baker explain how the late filing of the allegation impaired his ability to disprove the allegation. ¶9 Baker also argues that by allowing the allegation, the superior court violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Sections 24 and 30 of the Arizona Constitution. See Montero v. Foreman, 204 Ariz. 378, 381, ¶ 11, 64 P.3d 206, 209 (App. 2003). 3 Fundamental fairness and due process are protected by providing a defendant with adequate notice of the possibility of an enhanced sentence. See State v. Benak, 199 Ariz. 333, 337, ¶ 14, 18 P.3d 127, 131 (App. 2001). Proper notice is notice that does not mislead, surprise or deceive. Id. at 337, ¶ 16, 18 P.3d at 131 (quoting 3 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. U.S. Const. amend. VI; e.g., Gray v. Raines, 662 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir. 1981). 5 State v. Bayliss, 146 Ariz. 218, 219, 704 P.2d 1363, 1364 (App. 1985)). ¶10 Our amendment to supreme a court charge recently does not made violate clear the that Sixth an Amendment unless the defendant is actually prejudiced by insufficient notice. State v. Freeney, 223 Ariz. 110, 115, ¶ 29, 219 P.3d 1039, 1044 (2009). Assuming for purposes of argument that the Sixth Amendment applies to a late-filed allegation of a violentcrime conviction under A.R.S. § 13-901.03(A), the record in this case contains no evidence that Baker was actually prejudiced by the timing of the filing of the allegation in this case. As noted, Baker points to nothing in the record showing he rejected a plea offer actually that imposed. was more Moreover, favorable than the proved State the disposition Baker s prior conviction of a violent offense by way of a certified copy of the conviction; could have Baker enabled does him not to argue disprove that the additional fact of notice his prior conviction. ¶11 (1980), Citing Baker State argues v. that Bruce, a 125 pretrial Ariz. 421, amendment 610 to P.2d a 55 charge violates the Sixth Amendment if it changes the nature of the offense or it prejudices the defendant in any way. But Bruce concerned Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.5 and did not 6 address the Sixth Amendment. See Freeney, 223 Ariz. at 113, ¶ 22, 219 P.3d at 1042. ¶12 Baker s brief asserts in passing that the allegation violated the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure which require proper notice but does authorities or argument. not support that contention with The same is true with his contention that a violent-crime allegation under A.R.S. § 13-901.03(A) must be tried to a jury. We will not consider legal arguments that are not fully developed or that lack citations to authority. State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 452 n.9, ¶ 101, 94 P.3d 1119, 1147 n.9 (2004). CONCLUSION ¶13 Baker s The superior court breached neither Arizona law nor constitutional violent-crime rights allegation. by allowing Therefore, we the State s affirm the tardy court s imposition of probation. /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.