From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Molina

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two
Mar 7, 1978
575 P.2d 1276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978)

Summary

In State v. Molina, 118 Ariz. 250, 575 P.2d 1276 (App. 1978), the court held that a statute providing that a defendant would be ineligible for parole until he had served a minimum sentence was not "an invasion of the executive domain...."

Summary of this case from State v. Berger

Opinion

No. 2 CA-CR 1121.

January 12, 1978. Rehearing Denied February 14, 1978. Review Denied March 7, 1978.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Pima County, Cause No. A-31126, Norman S. Fenton, J.

Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer III, and Diane DeBrosse Hienton, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

John M. Neis, Pima County Public Defender by Frederic J. Dardis, Asst. Public Defender, Tucson, for appellant.


OPINION


Appellant, sentenced to concurrent sentences of not less than five nor more than six years in the state prison for (1) possession of heroin for sale and (2) unlawful sale of heroin, attacks the constitutionality of subsections (A) and (D) of A.R.S. § 36-1002.01 and A.R.S. § 36-1002.02. He claims that these statutory provisions, which mandate service of a five-year prison term, constitute an unconstitutional invasion of the powers of the executive as well as judicial branch of the government.

We have previously rejected a claim that mandatory prison sentences are an unconstitutional usurpation of judicial power. See State v. Williams, 115 Ariz. 288, 564 P.2d 1255 (App. 1977). Nor do we find an invasion of the executive domain because of non-eligibility for parole until the minimum sentence is served. The Arizona Constitution, Art. 5, § 5, gives the Governor power to grant reprieves, commutation, and pardons, with certain exceptions. The constitution does not speak of parole and therefore parole is within the legislative scope of establishing suitable punishment for the various crimes. See Standlee v. State, 96 Idaho 849, 538 P.2d 778 (1975).

Whether mandatory prison sentences are not appropriate in every situation is a question for the law-making body, not the courts.

Affirmed.

HOWARD and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Molina

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two
Mar 7, 1978
575 P.2d 1276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978)

In State v. Molina, 118 Ariz. 250, 575 P.2d 1276 (App. 1978), the court held that a statute providing that a defendant would be ineligible for parole until he had served a minimum sentence was not "an invasion of the executive domain...."

Summary of this case from State v. Berger
Case details for

State v. Molina

Case Details

Full title:The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Juan Jesus MOLINA, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two

Date published: Mar 7, 1978

Citations

575 P.2d 1276 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978)
575 P.2d 1276

Citing Cases

State v. Berger

See also State v. Williams, 115 Ariz. 288, 289, 564 P.2d 1255, 1256 (App. 1977) (mandatory minimum sentences…

State v. Wagstaff

I believe, however, that it is within the legislative domain to assign the power to impose parole. State v.…