Cited by

We are likewise bound by the Arizona Supreme Court’s ¶¶ 6–7 (2009), which recognized Williams’s holding when assessing Arizona’s laws on jury size.

Error, however, is a prerequisite to any standard of review and without error, “dispute over what category of error should be applied is irrelevant.” ¶ 12 (2009).

Traverso asserts that had he been informed about the plea offer, he would have accepted it and avoided the substantially harsher sentence he 9 Under article 2, section 23 of the Arizona Constitution, twelve-person juries are required in “criminal cases in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law.” ¶ 6 (2009).

Because Rodriguez objected to the introduction of his statements on voluntariness grounds below, our review is for harmless error.2

Ariz. Const. art. II, § 23 (amended 1972); ¶ 6 (2009).

(stating, in case addressing consecutive sentencing rather than units of prosecution, “When the act of firing one bullet results in two persons being injured, the person firing the bullet is responsible for two separate and distinct injuries and therefore has committed two assaults.”)

(“The prerequisite to [structural] error is that error indeed occurred.”).

did not violate [a defendant’s] Sixth Amendment rights”); ¶¶ 6-7 (2009) (recognizing the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Williams and explaining that under Arizona law, the legislature has “reserved the twelve-person jury only for the most serious offenses,” as measured “by the potential sentence upon conviction”); A.R.S.

-35 (1980); ¶ 11 (App. 1999), ¶ 17 (2009).

Appellant’s sentencing exposure was reduced to less than thirty years’ imprisonment before sentencing, however, we affirm.

the supreme court held that when a court empanels only eight jurors in such a situation, it must impose a sentence of less than 30 years.

the supreme court held that when a court empanels only eight jurors in such a situation, it must impose a sentence of less than 30 years.

¶ 13 (2009), our supreme court held that when a court empanels only eight jurors in such a situation, it must impose a sentence of less than 30 years.

¶ 16 (2009) (“By failing to request a jury of twelve, the State effectively waived its ability to obtain a sentence of thirty years or more.”).

¶10 Our supreme court has held that an eight-member jury may deliberate on offenses that expose a defendant to a sentence of thirty years or more if, “by the time the case is submitted, a sentence of thirty years or more is no longer ‘authorized by law.’” ¶ 13 (2009) (citing Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23).

State v. Henley, 141 Ariz. 465, 467, -14, -32 (App. 1990), approved in relevant part

The state appealed the court’s order granting the motion but the parties subsequently stipulated that jurisdiction of the case be revested in the trial court so it could consider the implications of the supreme court’s

¶8 Judge Howard dissented, stating “[t]he flaw in Diaz’s argument is that the transcript of the polling proves only a 1 ¶ 1, this Court departed from Henley and found no violation of Article 2, Section 23 of the Arizona Constitution “when a sentence of thirty years or more is authorized by law for the crimes charged, the case proceeds to verdict with a jury of less than twelve people without objection