In searching for pen pal ads for Darcy Dale Hurley I stumbled across this legal document that appears to be where Darcy Hurley appealed his sentence back in 1987. Among other things, this sheds a really bright light on what Darcy Dale Hurley did to land himself in prison for this long. I always knew Darcy Hurley was in prison due to armed robbery because it was stated on his prison record. However, Darcy has always claimed his sentence was unjustly long for what he did. And on the surface, I often wondered the same thing. Why did they give Darcy Hurley such a long sentence when murderers often even get less time. This document shows that Darcy Hurley committed these armed robberies while we was on parole from some prior offense which I am not aware of. In other words: Darcy Dale Hurley was a career criminal and they threw 3 life sentences at him.
On the evening of February 26, 1985, Hurley and an accomplice, William Alford Elliott, robbed three separate groups of people in east Phoenix hotel parking lots. Shortly before 8:00 p.m., the two men robbed an elderly couple. Brandishing a handgun, Hurley took the man’s wallet, the woman’s purse and jewelry, and then ordered the two to lie face-down between two vehicles on the asphalt as he and Elliott left. During the next hour, Hurley and Elliott robbed two businessmen as they were leaving their car. Hurley twice used the gun to strike one of the men in the face. After 9:00 p.m., Hurley, unaccompanied, robbed a different group of three men. Shortly following the third robbery, the police arrested Hurley and Elliott.
The state then introduced certified copies of official documents showing that Hurley had prior convictions for endangerment, burglary, and escape and was on “mandatory release”4 status from the Arizona Department of Corrections (DOC) when he committed the robberies. In addition, a parole officer testified that Hurley was to be on mandatory release status until June 20, 1985.
This also indicates that Darcy was acting as his own defense in this proceeding. Haha. Good one.
Hurley has alleged a potpourri of federal constitutional violations. First, he contends that as interpreted by this court, ยง 13-604.02(A) violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment, the eighth amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the jury trial guarantee of the sixth amendment. In addition, he claims that the manner in which the sentencing statute and other criminal statutes were applied to him created an unconstitutionally excessive sentence. We address these issues in turn.
