Cited by

See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”); ¶ 17 (under Arizona law, the “statutory maximum” referenced in Apprendi in a case in which no aggravated factors are proven is the presumptive range for purposes of A.R.S.

§ 13-703(D); ¶ 26 (2005) (“[T]he existence of a single aggravating factor exposes a defendant to an aggravated sentence”).

¶30 Once an appropriate aggravating factor has been found beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial court may then “find and consider additional factors relevant to the imposition of a sentence up to the maximum.” ¶ 26 (2005).

¶ 26 (2005) (stating “once a jury finds or a defendant admits a single aggravating factor, the Sixth Amendment permits the sentencing judge to find and consider 8 STATE v. HAMLET Decision of the Court additional fac

¶ 21 (2005) (“[O]nce a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment.”).

¶ 26 (2005) (“[O]nce a jury finds or a defendant admits a single aggravating factor, the Sixth Amendment permits the sentencing judge to find and consider additional factors relevant to the imposition of a sentence up to the maximum prescribed in that statute.”).

And our supreme court reiterated in State v. Martinez, “once a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment.” ¶ 21 (2005).

¶ 26 (2005) (“[O]nce a jury finds or a defendant admits a single aggravating factor, the Sixth Amendment permits the sentencing judge to find and consider additional factors relevant to the imposition of a sentence up to the maximum prescribed in that statute.”).

¶26 “Under Arizona’s sentencing scheme, once a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment available under [Arizona law].” ¶ 21 (2005); see also Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”).

§ 13-701(C), the superior court may impose an aggravated term “if one or more of the circumstances alleged to be in aggravation of the crime are found to be true by the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt or are admitted by the defendant.” ¶ 21 (2005) (“[A] jury finding of a single aggravating factor establishes the facts legally essential to expose the defendant to the maximum sentence prescribed in section 13–702.”).

¶ 21 (2005) (“Under Arizona’s sentencing scheme, once a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment .

¶ 17 (2005) ( ¶ 12 (2004)).

State v. Martinez , , ¶ 17, , 622-23 (2005).

¶ 21 (2005) (“Under Arizona’s sentencing scheme, once a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment available under section 13-702.

cited by Torrefranca, -86, ¶ 27 (2005) (holding court can rely on aggravating factors implicitly found by jury in sentencing).

¶21 Moreover, the statutory and constitutional scheme allows the court to impose an aggravated sentence upon a jury finding “a single aggravating factor.” ¶ 22 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 26 (2005)).

¶ 27, (concluding that when the jury convicted the defendant of first degree murder, it implicitly found the aggravating factor of “severe injuries and death of the victim”); n.2, ¶ 10, n.2 (2003) (holding that when a jury simultaneou

11 STATE v. HANCOCK Opinion of the Court require the finding of only one aggravating factor, §§ 13-701(C), 13- 702; and Hancock does not contest either the court’s use of the prior felony or the jury’s finding that the victim suffered emotional harm.

But, “once a jury finds or a defendant admits a single aggravating factor, the Sixth Amendment permits the sentencing judge to find and consider additional factors relevant to the imposition of a sentence up to the maximum prescribed in that statute.” ¶ 26 (2005) (citing A.R.S.

§ 13–703(F), or if the aggravating factors are reflected in the verdict, ¶ 16