State v. Molina

Court of Appeals of Arizona

State v. Molina

575 P.2d 1276, 118 Ariz. 250, 1978 Ariz. App. LEXIS 410

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJanuary 12, 1978

Docket2 CA-CR 1121

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 575 P.2d 1276 (State v. Molina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Molina, 575 P.2d 1276, 118 Ariz. 250, 1978 Ariz. App. LEXIS 410 (Ark. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

RICHMOND, Chief Judge.

Appellant, sentenced to concurrent sentences of not less than five nor more than *251 six years in the state prison for (1) possession of heroin for sale and (2) unlawful sale of heroin, attacks the constitutionality of subsections (A) and (D) of A.R.S. § 36-1002.01 and A.R.S. § 36-1002.02. He claims that these statutory provisions, which mandate service of a five-year prison term, constitute an unconstitutional invasion of the powers of the executive as well as judicial branch of the government.

We have previously rejected a claim that mandatory prison sentences are an unconstitutional usurpation of judicial power. See State v. Williams, 115 Ariz. 288, 564 P.2d 1255 (App.1977). Nor do we find an invasion of the executive domain because of non-eligibility for parole until the minimum sentence is served. The Arizona Constitution, Art. 5, § 5, gives the Governor power to grant reprieves, commutation, and pardons, with certain exceptions. The constitution does not speak of parole and therefore parole is within the legislative scope of establishing suitable punishment for the various crimes. See Standlee v. State, 96 Idaho 849, 538 P.2d 778 (1975).

Whether mandatory prison sentences are not appropriate in every situation is a question for the law-making body, not the courts.

Affirmed.

HOWARD and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

RICHMOND, Chief Judge.

Appellant, sentenced to concurrent sentences of not less than five nor more than *251 six years in the state prison for (1) possession of heroin for sale and (2) unlawful sale of heroin, attacks the constitutionality of subsections (A) and (D) of A.R.S. § 36-1002.01 and A.R.S. § 36-1002.02. He claims that these statutory provisions, which mandate service of a five-year prison term, constitute an unconstitutional invasion of the powers of the executive as well as judicial branch of the government.

We have previously rejected a claim that mandatory prison sentences are an unconstitutional usurpation of judicial power. See State v. Williams, 115 Ariz. 288, 564 P.2d 1255 (App.1977). Nor do we find an invasion of the executive domain because of non-eligibility for parole until the minimum sentence is served. The Arizona Constitution, Art. 5, § 5, gives the Governor power to grant reprieves, commutation, and pardons, with certain exceptions. The constitution does not speak of parole and therefore parole is within the legislative scope of establishing suitable punishment for the various crimes. See Standlee v. State, 96 Idaho 849, 538 P.2d 778 (1975).

Whether mandatory prison sentences are not appropriate in every situation is a question for the law-making body, not the courts.

Affirmed.

HOWARD and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 P.2d 1276, 118 Ariz. 250, 1978 Ariz. App. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-molina-arizctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack