Roachclip
New Member
Charles Reinhardt was holding an open beer bottle when Prescott Valley police pulled over the car he was riding in. The police officer made him empty his pockets, and found plastic bags with marijuana and methamphetamine.
It was a simple bust, but it turned into a test case for the state's "three-strikes-and-you're-out" drug law.
According to a Yavapai County Superior Court judge, Reinhardt had earned himself two strikes and accordingly, the judge sent him to jail.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, in a recent decision, called it an error. Strike 1, the higher court said.
It's a classic example of interplay between the courts and the Legislature. The Legislature writes the laws, and the courts interpret them.
In 1996, a voter's referendum called the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act - Proposition 200 for short - rewrote the statutes for drug possession.
Simply put, the first time a person is convicted of possession of marijuana or dangerous drugs, the law requires a sentence of probation and drug counseling. That's one strike.
The second conviction also earns a probation sentence but can include some jail time. And after the third strike, the defendant can be sentenced to prison.
Flaws in law's wording
But there were some flaws in the wording of the statute, or at least some ambiguities.
At first, Proposition 200 did not address possession of drug paraphernalia, a charge that accompanies nearly every drug possession charge. You've got to put the drug in something, so, according to law enforcement officials, "paraphernalia" could mean the bag containing the drug or the paper rolled around the marijuana cigarette. A 2001 Arizona Supreme Court decision corrected statutes under which a criminal could get probation for having marijuana and go to prison for the bag in which it was stored.
The statute refers to the convictions as "times."
But what does "time" or "strike" refer to? Is it individual charges or arrests?
"The way we would interpret it is, if you were to be pulled over and had marijuana and methamphetamine, for purposes of Prop. 200, that would be one offense and that would be your first strike and first strike only," said Bill Amato, special assistant Maricopa County attorney.
Pinal, Pimaand Yuma counties do the same.
A 2003 Court of Appeals case had suggested such an interpretation when a Maricopa County judge's ruling was overturned for making two strikes out of drug possession and drug paraphernalia charges stemming from a single arrest.
Other counties would plea bargain to one offense or the other.
Possession of dangerous drugs is classified as a more serious felony than possession of marijuana.
La Paz County Attorney Glen Buckalew said his office might plead to the lesser offense on the first strike and the more serious offense on the second, depending on circumstances.
And Greenlee County Attorney Derek Rapier said, "Typically we'd plead them to one offense so we kind of sidestepped the Reinhardt issue."
But Dennis McGrane, the chief deputy Yavapai County attorney who prosecuted Reinhardt's case before the Appeals Court, described it as unique.
"There's not very many people convicted of two separate drugs in one case," McGrane said, "and this was the only judge that I know of that had done that."
Prop. 200 test case
On Feb. 20, 2001, Reinhardt was riding between Prescott and Prescott Valley. Because he didn't have a valid driver's license, a friend was behind the wheel of his car.
They stopped at a Circle K, where, according to the story Reinhardt wrote out for police, Reinhardt ran into an acquaintance who offered him "some good deals" on marijuana and crystal meth. So he shelled out $60 for the drugs.
Police pulled over the car because the driver was traveling 10 mph under the speed limit. The officer noticed Reinhardt's beer, and searched him.
Reinhardt, 44, had been in trouble before.
McGrane recited the list: "Three felony convictions, eight misdemeanors, three prison incarcerations, one escape, five jail incarcerations. He's been on probation twice, parole twice," he said, though the law prohibited him from going into greater detail.
Reinhardt pleaded to possession of a dangerous drug, possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced in September 2001.
The Yavapai County Attorney's Office wanted to send Reinhardt to prison because of his criminal background, McGrane said, but since it was his first drug offense, it fell under Proposition 200.
According to transcripts of the sentencing, Reinhardt's attorney argued that this was Reinhardt's first strike.
Judge William T. Kiger thought the law was unclear on that point.
"Nobody's shown me a case yet where the appellate court has said this is what that means," he said. "And so we're all left here trying to say, what does it mean? I'm the guy wearing the black robe, so as for today, if we go ahead this way, that's the way it's going to be."
Then he added: "Doesn't mean that the appellate court might see it the way (the defense attorney) is talking about."
Kiger sentenced Reinhardt to four years of intensive probation, and 90 days in jail. The earlier Appeals Court decision said Kiger could not count possession of paraphernalia as a separate strike. But that decision had not said anything about two different drug charges. Kiger called them two strikes.
Reinhardt appealed the strikes, but the court system didn't move fast enough to keep him from doing the jail time that came with strike 2.
But the question needed to be answered. And as Kiger surmised, the appellate court didn't see it his way.
On June 29, Judge John Gemmill of the Appeals Court wrote, "We decide that Reinhardt's three drug offenses committed on the same occasion should have been considered as one 'time' of conviction or one strike for Proposition 200 sentencing purposes."
The Arizona Republic
Michael Kiefer
michael.kiefer@arizonarepublic.com
Jul. 26, 2004
2004, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
Help Center - The Arizona Republic
It was a simple bust, but it turned into a test case for the state's "three-strikes-and-you're-out" drug law.
According to a Yavapai County Superior Court judge, Reinhardt had earned himself two strikes and accordingly, the judge sent him to jail.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, in a recent decision, called it an error. Strike 1, the higher court said.
It's a classic example of interplay between the courts and the Legislature. The Legislature writes the laws, and the courts interpret them.
In 1996, a voter's referendum called the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act - Proposition 200 for short - rewrote the statutes for drug possession.
Simply put, the first time a person is convicted of possession of marijuana or dangerous drugs, the law requires a sentence of probation and drug counseling. That's one strike.
The second conviction also earns a probation sentence but can include some jail time. And after the third strike, the defendant can be sentenced to prison.
Flaws in law's wording
But there were some flaws in the wording of the statute, or at least some ambiguities.
At first, Proposition 200 did not address possession of drug paraphernalia, a charge that accompanies nearly every drug possession charge. You've got to put the drug in something, so, according to law enforcement officials, "paraphernalia" could mean the bag containing the drug or the paper rolled around the marijuana cigarette. A 2001 Arizona Supreme Court decision corrected statutes under which a criminal could get probation for having marijuana and go to prison for the bag in which it was stored.
The statute refers to the convictions as "times."
But what does "time" or "strike" refer to? Is it individual charges or arrests?
"The way we would interpret it is, if you were to be pulled over and had marijuana and methamphetamine, for purposes of Prop. 200, that would be one offense and that would be your first strike and first strike only," said Bill Amato, special assistant Maricopa County attorney.
Pinal, Pimaand Yuma counties do the same.
A 2003 Court of Appeals case had suggested such an interpretation when a Maricopa County judge's ruling was overturned for making two strikes out of drug possession and drug paraphernalia charges stemming from a single arrest.
Other counties would plea bargain to one offense or the other.
Possession of dangerous drugs is classified as a more serious felony than possession of marijuana.
La Paz County Attorney Glen Buckalew said his office might plead to the lesser offense on the first strike and the more serious offense on the second, depending on circumstances.
And Greenlee County Attorney Derek Rapier said, "Typically we'd plead them to one offense so we kind of sidestepped the Reinhardt issue."
But Dennis McGrane, the chief deputy Yavapai County attorney who prosecuted Reinhardt's case before the Appeals Court, described it as unique.
"There's not very many people convicted of two separate drugs in one case," McGrane said, "and this was the only judge that I know of that had done that."
Prop. 200 test case
On Feb. 20, 2001, Reinhardt was riding between Prescott and Prescott Valley. Because he didn't have a valid driver's license, a friend was behind the wheel of his car.
They stopped at a Circle K, where, according to the story Reinhardt wrote out for police, Reinhardt ran into an acquaintance who offered him "some good deals" on marijuana and crystal meth. So he shelled out $60 for the drugs.
Police pulled over the car because the driver was traveling 10 mph under the speed limit. The officer noticed Reinhardt's beer, and searched him.
Reinhardt, 44, had been in trouble before.
McGrane recited the list: "Three felony convictions, eight misdemeanors, three prison incarcerations, one escape, five jail incarcerations. He's been on probation twice, parole twice," he said, though the law prohibited him from going into greater detail.
Reinhardt pleaded to possession of a dangerous drug, possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced in September 2001.
The Yavapai County Attorney's Office wanted to send Reinhardt to prison because of his criminal background, McGrane said, but since it was his first drug offense, it fell under Proposition 200.
According to transcripts of the sentencing, Reinhardt's attorney argued that this was Reinhardt's first strike.
Judge William T. Kiger thought the law was unclear on that point.
"Nobody's shown me a case yet where the appellate court has said this is what that means," he said. "And so we're all left here trying to say, what does it mean? I'm the guy wearing the black robe, so as for today, if we go ahead this way, that's the way it's going to be."
Then he added: "Doesn't mean that the appellate court might see it the way (the defense attorney) is talking about."
Kiger sentenced Reinhardt to four years of intensive probation, and 90 days in jail. The earlier Appeals Court decision said Kiger could not count possession of paraphernalia as a separate strike. But that decision had not said anything about two different drug charges. Kiger called them two strikes.
Reinhardt appealed the strikes, but the court system didn't move fast enough to keep him from doing the jail time that came with strike 2.
But the question needed to be answered. And as Kiger surmised, the appellate court didn't see it his way.
On June 29, Judge John Gemmill of the Appeals Court wrote, "We decide that Reinhardt's three drug offenses committed on the same occasion should have been considered as one 'time' of conviction or one strike for Proposition 200 sentencing purposes."
The Arizona Republic
Michael Kiefer
michael.kiefer@arizonarepublic.com
Jul. 26, 2004
2004, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
Help Center - The Arizona Republic
