In State v. Tamplin, 146 Ariz. 377, 380, 706 P.2d 389, 392 (App. 1984), the Court interpreted the following similar language found in a different statute: "A person who . . . stands convicted of a class 4, 5 or 6 felony involving the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury or the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument without having previously been convicted of any felony shall be sentenced to imprisonment . . . ." A.R.S. 13-604(F) (Supp. 1985). The Tamplin court reached the same conclusion we reach today, that "intentional or knowing" does not apply to the phrase "the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument": It is clear to us that the legislature specifically meant to require that the infliction of serious physical injury had to be done intentionally or knowingly, but for the use of a dangerous instrument these mental states were not required. This makes sense because of the difference between causing serious physical injury and using a dangerous instrument. The legislature has determined that one who uses a dangerous instrument is more culpable than one who causes injury without intention or knowledge. 146 Ariz. at 380, 706 P.2d at 392.