Cited by

Laws, ch. 190, §§ 1–2; ¶ 23 (App. 2014).

Laws, ch. 236, § 1 (release status to be determined by "trier of fact"); State v. Large , , ¶¶ 12, 16, (defendant entitled to jury determination of release status for purpose of sentence enhancement).

¶24 P.3d 125 (App. 2015) P.3d 439 (App. 2014) to support her argument that the trial court erred in not requiring the jury to explicitly determine the amount of the benefit obtained in relation to the fraud count.

¶9 This court will disturb a jury’s verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence only “where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” ¶ 8 (App. 2014) (citations omitted).

In arguing the prior conviction should have been submitted to a jury, Togstad relies on State v. Gross arguing he was entitled to a jury trial for any enhancement that would increase his sentence.

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160 (2013); ¶ 12 (App. 2014).

¶ 12, (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000)).

¶ 15, (“We conclude, in light of Alleyne, that Large was entitled to have a jury determine his parole status[.]”).

P.3d 439 (App. 2014), and held that the fact that a defendant was on release at the time of commission of the offenses, and thus subject to enhanced sentencing pursuant to A.R.S.

We have held that Apprendi applies ―to a defendant’s release status when that fact exposes him to a higher mandatory minimum sentence.‖ -80, ¶ 16, -45 (App. 2014).

¶13 In any event, any error in failing to submit the determination whether the prior or current convictions were “serious offenses” was necessarily harmless because no reasonable jury could have failed to find that Smith had committed a third “serious offense.” ¶ 19, (holding that error in submitting parole status to jury was harmless, because no reasonable jury could have found that defendant was not on parole at the time of his offense).

-80, ¶ 16, -45 (App. 2014), that a defendant is entitled to have a jury find his release status beyond a reasonable doubt when that status exposes him to a higher mandatory minimum penalty.