for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County, No.
CR20084770, The Honorable Kathleen Quigley, Judge. REVIEW
GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
Arizona Capital Representation Project, Tucson, By Amy
Armstrong and Sam Kooistra, Counsel for Petitioner
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which
Judge Espinosa concurred, and Judge Eckerstrom dissented.
Mark Kasic seeks review of the trial courts order summarily
dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed
pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. He argues, as he did
below, that his consecutive sentences
violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. We grant review but deny relief.
After a jury trial, Kasic was convicted of thirty-two
felonies arising from a series of arsons spanning a one-year
period, some committed while he was under the age of
eighteen. State v. Kasic, 228 Ariz. 228, ¶ 1, 265
P.3d 410 (App. 2011). His combination of concurrent and
consecutive prison terms totaled nearly 140 years.
Id. On appeal, we affirmed his convictions except
for two, which we modified to misdemeanors, and rejected his
argument that his consecutive sentences violated the Eighth
Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
We remanded for resentencing on the modified convictions.
Id. ¶¶ 1, 32. The aggregate of his prison terms
after resentencing remained unchanged. Kasic sought and was
denied post-conviction relief, and this court denied relief
on review. State v. Kasic, No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0307-PR,
2013 WL 6823267 (Ariz. App. Dec. 23, 2013) (mem. decision).
In 2017, Kasic again sought post-conviction relief, arguing
that under Montgomery v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __, 136
S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), Miller v.
Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407
(2012), and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130
S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), his consecutive prison
terms are unconstitutional because they collectively
constitute a sentence of life without the possibility of
parole. The trial court summarily denied
relief. This petition for review followed.
On review, Kasic repeats his argument that his consecutive
sentences violate the Eighth Amendment under
Montgomery, Miller, and Graham .
In Graham, the United States Supreme Court decided
that "[t]he Constitution prohibits the imposition of a
life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did
not commit homicide." 560 U.S. at 82, 130 S.Ct. 2011. In
Miller and Montgomery, the Court determined
that a sentence of life without parole imposed on a juvenile
convicted of a homicide offense violates the Eighth Amendment
unless the juveniles crimes "reflect irreparable
corruption" rather than "transient
immaturity." State v. Valencia, 241 Ariz. 206,
¶¶ 14, 18, 386 P.3d 392 (2016) (quoting Montgomery,
136 S.Ct. at 734, 735).
Kasic asserts that Arizona law regarding the application of
Graham, Miller, and Montgomery to
consecutive sentences is "unresolved." It is not.
In Kasics appeal, we determined Graham did not
entitle him to relief because the Court in Graham
had not addressed consecutive sentences for multiple crimes,
and "we do not consider the imposition of consecutive
sentences in [a] proportionality inquiry" under the
Eighth Amendment. Kasic, 228 Ariz. 228, ¶¶ 23-24,
265 P.3d 410. And, as the trial court observed, we resolved
in State v. Helm, 245 Ariz. 560, 431 P.3d 1213 (App.
2018), whether Miller and Montgomery had
abrogated Kasic . We noted that the Supreme Court
had not addressed consecutive sentences in Miller or
Montgomery, and we determined that the applicable
law remained as it was when we decided Kasic —
we do not consider the aggregate of multiple sentences when
evaluating a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See
id. ¶¶ 8-10. Accordingly, we decline to revisit that
We grant review but deny relief.
I respectfully dissent for the same reasons I expressed in
Helm, 245 Ariz. 560, ¶¶ 13-22, 431 P.3d 1213
(Eckerstrom, C.J., dissenting). I write further to ...