There is a joke that lawyers ended up in law school because there aren't any math problems on the LSAT. Despite that impression, the Maricopa County Superior Court created a math problem worthy of Noble Prize winning physicists.
The issue is reduction of a DUI jail sentence to 20% of "initial term of incarceration" under A.R.S. § 9-499.07(N)(3). For example, if someone is convicted of a first time super-extreme DUI under ARS 28-1382(A)(2) the jail sentence is 45 days in jail. But under a new law called CERTA, if a driver installs an interlock device under A.R.S. § 28-1382(I), then the minimum jail term is only 14 days in jail.
So the question remains are judges supposed to calculate 20% of 45 days or 20% of 14 days. If the first scenario is correct, the driver would serve 9 days in jail, 5 days home detention, and the remaining 31 days are suspended. If the second scenario is correct, then the sentence is 3 days in jail, 11 home detention, and the remaining 31 days are suspended.
My experience has been the interpretation of this law differed from judge to judge without a clear answer anywhere. In fact, the city of Peoria judges were interpreting the jail time under the second second but then doubling the days on home arrest. Where they got that interpretation I have no idea.
On appeal, the Superior Court of Maricopa County issued a preliminary ruling holding the first scenario is correct. You can see the ruling here 45422747-Jenja sentencing.pdf.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
↧