In State v. Rushton, 172 Ariz. 454, 837 P.2d 1189 (App. 1992), the defendant pled guilty to attempted child molestation but the agreement did not provide that he would be sentenced under the DCAC statute and instead incorrectly provided for a more lenient sentence. 172 Ariz. at 457, 837 P.2d at 1192. The Court first noted the sentencing error was merely "technical" in nature because "the state could have offered virtually the same sentence" by stipulation. Id. at 458, 837 P.2d at 1193. The Court additionally observed the state was "willing to enter the plea agreement . . . to preclude the necessity of the young victims' having to testify again at trial and relive the acts they were attempting to overcome." Id. Thus, the Court concluded, "public policy militates against our simply vacating the illegal agreement." Id.