Cited by

¶21 Amici contend that § 36-2862(F) excludes the state’s right to appeal because of the rule that “[i]n general, when the legislature (or voters) expressly prescribes a list in a statute (or initiative), ‘we assume the exclusion of items not listed.’” ¶ 15 (2018) ().

Instead, it repealed not only that subsection but the portion of subsection (A) that 6 STATE v. SANCHEZ Opinion of the Court 393, 397 (App. 1995) (change to one section and not to another indicative of intent in determining implicit repeal); (“[W]hen the legislature expresses a list, we assume the exclusion of items not listed.”).

State v. Ault , , 519, , 1323 (1988).

“Generally, when the [Legislature expresses a list, we assume the exclusion of items not listed.”

ermine whether a prior conviction is a “violent offense” for purposes of a statutory denial of probation for commission of drug offenses); ¶¶ 6-7, (holding that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to determine the existence of a prior conviction for a serious offense as aggravating circumstance in a capital case); (holding pre-Apprendi that a “sensible” construction of the governing statute dictates that determination of whether an offense is a serious offense is a purely legal question.

(foreign convictions considered for sentence enhancement purposes must be equivalent of felony convictions in Arizona).

Arizona Felony ¶25 In order to determine whether a foreign conviction would be a felony in Arizona, the test is whether it “includes ‘every element that would be required to prove an enumerated Arizona offense.’”

See Colvin, 293 P.3d at 548- 49.6 Under this test, the foreign conviction must “include[] ‘every element that would be required to prove an enumerated Arizona offense.’” Crawford, 149 P.3d at 755

§ 13-604, the superior court must first conclude that the foreign conviction includes ‘every element that would be required to prove an enumerated Arizona offense.’”)

Pereyra, 199 Ariz. at 354, ¶ 7 , 18 P.3d at 148 ( , (“[W]hen the legislature expresses a list, we assume the exclusion of items not listed.”)).

(when legislature expresses list, generally we assume exclusion of items not listed).

When making this determination, a sentencing court examines whether the foreign conviction entailed a finding by the former trier of fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, of “every element that would be required to prove an enumerated Arizona offense.”

Before a court may use “a foreign conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes under § 13-604, the superior court must first conclude that the foreign conviction includes ‘every element that would be required to prove an enumerated Arizona offense.’” Crawford, 214 Ariz. at 131, ¶ 7, 149 P.3d at 755 ( ).

-31, ¶20 , -90 (2002) (rejecting argument that the legislature intended a showing of gross negligence when the statute spoke only of negligence because the “legislature surely knows how to require a showing of gross negligence, having used that term in a great number of statutes”); , (“Because the legislature obviously knew how to require a jury finding when that was its intention and did not make such a provision here, we conclude that the legislature did not intend for seriousness to require a

A. ¶7 Before using a foreign conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes under § 13-604, the superior court must first conclude that the foreign conviction includes “every element that would be required to prove an enumerated Arizona offense.”

¶ 8 , the supreme court considered the reach of A.R.S.

¶ 4 , (determining whether a prior out-of-state conviction would be a felony in Arizona is an issue of law for the trial judge to decide); , (determining whether an offense is a “serious offense” is a question for the judge); , (holding that a determination that a prior conviction involves the use or threat of violence requires an analysis of the statutory definitio

(“when the legislature expresses a list, we assume the exclusion of items not listed”).

The State must prove that “the fact finder in the prior case actually found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed every element that would be required to prove the Arizona offense.” -20 , -66 (1992) ( , ).

(-04 , -74 (1967)) (statute’s express inclusion of subjects excludes all others not mentioned); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.11, p. 165 (Singer 5th ed. 1992).

our supreme court ruled that in order for an out-of-state conviction to constitute one of the felonies enumerated in A.R.S.