State v. Smith (1999)
In State v. Smith, 197 Ariz. 333, 340, 21, 4 P.3d 388, 395 (App. 1999), counsel stipulated to concurrent sentences for the express purpose of bringing the potential sentence under thirty years so that a jury of eight rather than twelve could be impaneled. 197 Ariz. at 336, 6, 4 P.3d at 391.
Defense counsel testified that he "promptly conferred with his client" about the stipulation and explained that "we had an agreement that we would go with a smaller jury and that would limit the time that he would be exposed to if we lost the trial." Id. at 337, 8, 4 P.3d at 392.
According to the defense counsel, the defendant was in agreement in proceeding in that manner. Id. Nonetheless, we still found reversal was required. Id. at 340, 21, 4 P.3d at 395.