State v. Mata ( 2016 )

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee
v.
DAVID M. MATA, Appellant.
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0234
FILED 1-7-2016
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-137145-002
The Honorable John R. Ditsworth, Judge
CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES AFFIRMED IN PART,
REMANDED IN PART
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Michael J. Dew, Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Michael J. Dew
Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. MATA
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.
B R O W N, Chief Judge:
¶1 A jury convicted David M. Mata of one count of burglary in
the second degree, a class three felony (Count 1), and one count of criminal
trespass in the first degree, a class six felony (Count 2). Following an
evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Mata had at least two historical
prior felony convictions. The court sentenced Mata to aggravated prison
terms of 16 years on each count, to be served concurrently.
¶2 On appeal, Mata argues his sentence on Count 2 is illegal
because the maximum aggravated sentence for a Category Three offender
convicted of a class six felony is 5.75 years. See Arizona Revised Statutes
section 13-703(J). The State concedes error, noting that the range of sentence
for a class 6 felony with two historical prior felony convictions is 2.25 years
to 5.75 years’ imprisonment. See id.
¶3 “Courts have power to impose sentences only as authorized
by statute and within the limits set down by the legislature.” State v. Harris,
133 Ariz. 30, 31 (App. 1982). A sentence that falls outside the statutory
range is unlawful and therefore constitutes fundamental, prejudicial error.
See State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1, 13, ¶ 40 (2010).
¶4 Because Mata’s sixteen-year sentence for Count 2 falls outside
the statutory range, we vacate that sentence and remand for resentencing
as to Count 2 only. We affirm Mata’s convictions on both counts and his
sentence for Count 1.
:ama
2