Filed: May 29, 2012
Latest Update: May 29, 2012
Summary: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 MEMORANDUM DECISION TIMMER, Judge. 1 Yahya Kenyatta appeals a superior court order denying his petition for special action, which sought review of the Arizona Department of Corrections Time Eligibility Unit's ("Time Unit") finding he was ineligible for sentence commutation. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Summary: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 MEMORANDUM DECISION TIMMER, Judge. 1 Yahya Kenyatta appeals a superior court order denying his petition for special action, which sought review of the Arizona Department of Corrections Time Eligibility Unit's ("Time Unit") finding he was ineligible for sentence commutation. For the following reasons, we affirm. B..
More
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
TIMMER, Judge.
¶1 Yahya Kenyatta appeals a superior court order denying his petition for special action, which sought review of the Arizona Department of Corrections Time Eligibility Unit's ("Time Unit") finding he was ineligible for sentence commutation. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Kenyatta is serving a felony sentence in state prison in Florence. In his special action petition filed with the superior court, he alleged the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency ("ABEC") notified him in 1994 that he was eligible for sentence commutation, but ABEC ultimately denied commutation after a hearing. On May 21, 2009, Kenyatta attempted to file a petition asking ABEC to reconsider commutation, but the Time Unit, which screens such petitions,1 refused the request because it found him ineligible for sentence commutation pursuant to former Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-604.02(A).2 Although respondents did not respond to the petition,3 the superior court denied it on December 16, 2010 without explanation. This appeal followed.4
DISCUSSION
¶3 Because the superior court declined jurisdiction of Kenyatta's special action petition, the sole issue on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion in doing so. Bilagody v. Thorneycroft, 125 Ariz. 88, 92, 607 P.2d 965, 969 (App. 1979). An abuse of discretion is discretion exercised in a manner that is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. Quigley v. City Court of Tucson, 132 Ariz. 35, 37, 643 P.2d 738, 740 (App. 1982).
¶4 Kenyatta argues the superior court abused its discretion by denying his petition because the Time Unit was wrong in finding him ineligible for sentence commutation pursuant to former A.R.S. § 13-604.02(A) in light of ABEC's position in 1994 that he was eligible. We disagree. The superior court convicted Kenyatta of aggravated assault in connection with a series of events that occurred on January 5, 1991. "A basic principle of criminal law requires that an offender be sentenced under the laws in effect at the time he committed the offense for which he is being sentenced." State v. Newton, 200 Ariz. 1, 2, ¶ 3, 21 P.3d 387, 388 (2001) (citing A.R.S. § 1-246). Accordingly, Kenyatta was sentenced under A.R.S. § 13-604.02(A) as it existed in 1991, which read in relevant part as follows:
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, a person convicted of any felony offense involving the use or exhibition of a. . . dangerous instrument . . . if committed while the person is on probation for a conviction of a felony offense or parole . . . shall be sentenced to life imprisonment and is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence . . . until the person has served not less than twenty-five years.
(West 1991) (emphasis added). The superior court found that Kenyatta was guilty of aggravated assault with the use of a dangerous instrument while on probation and sentenced him to life in prison pursuant to former A.R.S. § 13-604.02(A). Accordingly, under the version of § 13-604.02(A) that existed at the time Kenyatta committed his crime, he is ineligible for commutation of sentence until he has served twenty-five years, even assuming ABEC previously concluded he was eligible.5 Therefore, because Kenyatta's petition lacked merit on its face, the superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying it.
CONCLUSION
¶5 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Michael J. Brown, Presiding Judge, Margaret H. Downie, Judge, concurring.
