At one extreme, Eppich said, are people who are convicted of what are classified as “dangerous offenses’’ under Arizona law -- or any offense in another state that, had it occurred here, would have been in the same category -- have no legal right to seek to have their rights restored.
A second category involves those who are convicted of “serious offenses,’’ here or elsewhere. They cannot seek to restore their rights for at least 10 years after their cases have been “absolutely discharged,’’ meaning after all fines are paid and all periods of probation have ended.
But Eppich said those convicted of “any other felony offense’’ can seek to regain their rights two years from date of absolute discharge. Gahary contends -- and prosecutors do not dispute -- that his convictions fall into that last category.
Put simply, the judge said, Arizona law contemplates exactly the kind of relief that Gahary is seeking.
What happens now is Gahary gets to go back to trial court to convince the judge he should be allowed to possess and carry a weapon. But Eppich said that is far from automatic.
“As both Gahary and the state acknowledge, it is in the trial court’s discretion on remand to determine whether to grant the motion on the merits,’’ the appellate judge said.
