Cited by

tained disputed issue of material fact, this Court should remand the matter to the juvenile court for it to either clarify that there were no disputed issues of material fact in DCS’s court report that necessitated a hearing or hold an evidentiary hearing if there were disputed issues of fact in the report.” Although this court is not required to accept this concession of error, 3 IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF E.C.

Although we need not accept a concession, we agree that the court erred.

3 STATE v. DIKES Decision of the Court ¶9 Although we are not required to accept the State’s concession of error, we do so here because the State does not argue that an independent basis exists in the record to deny relief.

¶ 25 (2001) (), and commentary related to it “is highly persuasive,” id.

(stating that when statutes are based on model acts, Arizona courts assume the legislature meant to adopt the comments to the model acts).

¶ 24 “However, we are not required to accept the state’s [concession] of error.”

(commentary to a uniform code "is highly persuasive unless erroneous or contrary to settled policy in this state").

¶ 17, (if an Arizona statute is based on a uniform act, courts assume the legislature “intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters[,]” and commentary to the uniform act is “highly persuasive unless erroneous or contrary to settled policy in this state”) ( ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The state concedes the claim of error and “agrees that the correct remedy is to vacate the two lesser included convictions.” We nevertheless examine this issue because we are not bound by the state’s concession, and we will not ignore fundamental error when we find it

See, 47-48 , 860-61 (App.1993) (defendant admitted facts sufficient to prove guilty of conspiracy to sell narcotic drugs, but plea agreement reduced charge to attempted offense; vacating same because “the preparatory offense of attempt does not apply to the preparatory offense of conspiracy,” and th

¶ 17 , (if an A-izona statute is based on a uniform act, courts assume the legislature “intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters,” and commentary to the uniform act is “highly persuasive unless erroneous or contrary to settled policy in this state”) ( , ).

But we are not bound by the state’s confession of error, particularly when applicable legal principles do not support it.

400 , -46 (1984)); ¶ 17 , (“When a statute is based on a uniform act, we assume that the legislature ‘intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters.’ ”) ( , ).

Thus, commentary to such a uniform act is ‘highly persuasive unless erroneous or contrary to settled policy in this state.’ ”) ( , ).

(Model Penal Code is a source of current Arizona criminal statutes); Rudolph J. Gerber, Criminal Law of Arizona, Author’s Preface IV, at vi (1978) (1962 Model Penal Code inspired most of Arizona Criminal Code, which became effective in 1978).

¶ 25 Further, when a statute is based on a uniform act, we assume that the legislature “intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters.”

“When a statute is based on a uniform act, we assume that the legislature ‘intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters.’ ” ¶ 17 , ¶ 17 (App.1998) ( , ).

Although we are not required to accept the state’s confession of error, , we agree with the parties that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant pursuant to A.R.S.