State v. Laughter
In State v. Laughter, 128 Ariz. 264, 268-69, 625 P.2d 327, 331-32 (App. 1980), the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that the two sentencing schemes were in conflict. 128 Ariz. at 269, 625 P.2d at 332.
The defendant in Laughter was convicted of armed robbery, a dangerous offense, and had prior non-dangerous convictions. Id. at 268, 625 P.2d at 331.
The court reasoned that there was nothing in the dangerous offense statute that would prohibit the defendant from being sentenced as a repetitive offender and to hold otherwise would be contrary to the legislature's intent. Id. at 269, 625 P.2d at 332.