State v. Blackwell

── State v. Blackwell ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner, v. ROBERT WILLIAM BLACKWELL, Respondent. No. 1 CA-SA 25-0316 FILED 05-20-2026 Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2023-006734-001 The Honorable Utiki Spurling Laing, Judge Pro Tempore JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Petitioner The Law Office of Kyle T. Green P.L.L.C., Mesa By Kyle T. Green Counsel for Respondent  STATE v. BLACKWELL Opinion of the Court OPINION Acting Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 When the State alleges that certain convictions qualify as “historical prior felony convictions,” resolving that allegation may turn on whether the offenses underlying a defendant’s prior convictions were committed on the “same occasion” and thus qualify as only a single conviction. See A.R.S. § 13-703(L). In this special action, the State asks us to declare that a judge, instead of a jury, can make that decision. ¶2 As explained more fully below, a defendant facing a potential enhanced sentence has the constitutional right to a jury determination on prior convictions for any factual determination that falls outside a narrow exception the United States Supreme Court has adopted. Thus, if the State seeks to prove that certain offenses were not committed on the same occasion and relies on evidence that goes beyond the mere existence of the prior convictions, the State must prove its case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore accept jurisdiction but deny relief. BACKGROUND ¶3 Before Robert Blackwell’s 2024 trial on two counts of aggravated driving under the influence, the State filed an allegation of 11 historical felony convictions. See A.R.S. § 13-703 (outlining requirements for sentencing repetitive offenders). Four offenses underlying those convictions were committed in 1980, one in 1996, and two each in 1997, 2004, and 2017. ¶4 A jury found Blackwell guilty as charged and, given that he had absconded, the superior court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. After Blackwell was apprehended, the court set a jury trial to determine the effect of Blackwell’s prior convictions on sentencing. The State moved to vacate the jury trial, asserting that despite Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), and State v. Porter, 258 Ariz. 590 (App. 2024), depublished in part by 259 Ariz. 467 (2025), judges can determine the number of historical prior 2  STATE v. BLACKWELL Opinion of the Court felony convictions a defendant has when “the calculation is based entirely on objective data gathered from conclusive judicial records.” ¶5 The superior court denied the motion, explaining that under Erlinger, the State must proceed with a jury trial, particularly when the prior offenses were committed on different dates, at different locations, and there is uncertainty whether some offenses were continuations of others. The court then granted the State’s motions for designation of a question for special action review and to stay the sentencing proceedings pending the resolution of this special action. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 13(a) (permitting courts to “designate a question arising from any decision it has made as one it believes should be reviewed by special action”). This special action f