Whether in the Phoenix area, or anywhere in Arizona, per A.R.S. §13-1004, “Facilitation” occurs when a person, acting with the “knowledge” that another person is committing or intends to commit a crime, knowingly provides that person with the means or opportunity for the commission of the offense. Arizona prosecutors will try to argue that the statute includes any activities that aid in the perpetration of an offense including loaning somebody a car or weapon so they can go rob a bank, helping to bury a body or evidence, helping somebody avoid detection by the police, etc..
The crime of Facilitation can often look like Conspiracy, but it doesn’t really involve much planning like conspiracy does. Facilitation is charged when there is no express agreement between the parties to commit an offense, the defendant just instantaneously decides to help a friend in some way, without the intent that a crime be committed, or any real agreement or planning in advance to help. Most often, Facilitation is usually “Facilitation After the Fact”: providing help to somebody after they have already committed a crime. Because Facilitation carries a much lower punishment range than Conspiracy, we will often be successful in negotiating with the prosecutors to charge our client with Facilitation rather than Conspiracy.
Need an Arizona Facilitation Attorney? Contact David Michael Cantor if you have been charged with Facilitation. Call 24/7 – 602-307-0808 for a Free Consultation.
Possible Punishment for Facilitation
If a class one (1) felony (i.e., Murder) has been committed, and the defendant had participated in Facilitating that crime, then they are guilty of a class five (5) felony. For a first offense class five (5) felony, punishment can be probation with zero (0) days up to one (1) year in jail, or prison of six (6) months to two and one half (2.5) years in custody. If the person has one (1) historical allegeable prior felony conviction, then the “prison only” range is one (1) to three and three quarters (3.75) years of incarceration. If the person has two (2) historical allegeable prior felony convictions then the “prison only” range is three (3) years to seven and one half (7.5) years of incarceration.
If a class two (2) or class three (3) felony was committed by the perpetrator, and the defendant had participated in Facilitating it, then the defendant can be charged with a class six (6) felony. For a first offense a class six (6) felony, punishment can be probation with zero (0) days up to one (1) year in jail, or prison of four (4) months to two (2) years of incarceration. If the person has one (1) historical allegeable prior felony conviction, then the “prison only” range is nine (9) months to two and three quarters (2.75) years in prison. If the person has two (2) historical allegeable prior felony convictions, then the “prison only” range is two and one quarter (2.25) to five and three quarters (5.75) years of incarceration.
If the perpetrator committed a class four (4) or class five (5) felony, then the person Facilitating that crime can be charged with a class one (1) misdemeanor. The range of punishment for a class one (1) misdemeanor is probation with anywhere from zero (0) days in jail up to six (6) months in jail, and a fine of up to $2500.00 plus an 84% surcharge.
If the perpetrator committed a class six (6) felony or any misdemeanor, then the person Facilitating that crime can be charged with a class three (3) misdemeanor. A class three (3) misdemeanor carries a range of punishment of probation with up to thirty (30) days in jail. In addition, a fine of up to $500.00 plus an 84% surcharge can be imposed.
Possible Defenses for Facilitation
A key defense to Facilitation is “innocent aid” by the defendant. In other words, lack of knowledge by the defendant that someone else has committed, or is intending to commit an offense. This can occur when a friend comes to your house and says “I need to stay here for a few days,” and you agree to put them up. If you did not have knowledge that they were hiding from the police because they committed a crime, then you are not “facilitating” their avoidance of capture. Another type of defense is a justification defense called “Duress.” The Duress defense is that although the defendant did something criminal, he had no other choice but to do it because if he didn’t, something worse would have happened. For example, the defendant is confronted by the co-defendant who states “loan me your gun to kill Bobby, or else I will kill your kid.”
Additionally, because our law firm fights conviction from all angles, we would assert a wide range of defenses and challenges to constitutional violations that apply in all criminal cases. The possibilities are numerous and diverse. One of those we frequently assert is a “Miranda rights violation.” In Arizona, the standard of whether any incriminating statement (i.e., a statement which tends to admit guilt) is admissible into evidence is based upon a “voluntariness” standard. If we can demonstrate that the police coerced you (i.e., intimidated or tricked you) into making a confession or inculpatory statement, or that they did not properly read you your Miranda Rights, then we can suppress those statements and any evidence gathered as a direct result of those statements. In addition, the “denial of right to Counsel” is another common defense which is often raised. This occurs when a suspect is in custody and requests to speak to their attorney, but is denied and questioning continues. Other defenses may include challenging the validity of any search warrant, or whether there were any “forensic flaws” during the investigation of your case. Depending on what else you have been charged with, this could include exposing flawed procedures regarding blood, breath, and urine testing; fingerprints analysis; DNA testing; ballistics; gunshot residue testing; computer analysis/cloning hard drive procedures; forensic financial accounting reviews; etc.. Lastly, one of the most common defense tactics is exposing sloppy or misleading police reports which include everything from misstatements, false statements, flawed photo line-ups and inaccurate crime scene reconstruction. It is important to hire a skilled Facilitation lawyer to defend you who has knowledge of all the possible defenses to assert in your case.
It is important to hire an AV® rated law firm (the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubbell®). Also David Michael Cantor is an Arizona Facilitation Attorney and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. In addition, the Firm and all of its lawyers are listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers®. At DM Cantor, P.C., the majority of our Attorneys are ex-Prosecutors, and all of our Arizona Facilitation Attorneys know the system well. For a free initial consultation, call us at 602-307-0808, or click here to contact us now.