context: . Mangum does not argue, and we do not find, that the pertinent statutes are unclear or reasonably susceptible to different interpretations. Therefore, the rule of lenity does not apply here, nor does Mangum argue otherwise.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 445 U.S. 65, 65
citation_a.parenthetical: lenity principle's "touchstone ... is statutory ambiguity" and does not apply when "statute could not be more plain"
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Sanchez, 209 Ariz. 66, ¶ 6, 97 P.3d 891, 893 (App.2004); State v. Fell, 203 Ariz. 186, ¶ 10, 52 P.3d 218, 221 (App.2002); see also Lewis, 445 U.S. at 65, 100 S.Ct. at 920-21 (lenity principle’s "touchstone ... is statutory ambiguity” and does not apply when "statute could not be more plain”).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.identifier: 681 P.2d 227, 230
citation_b.parenthetical: applying rule of lenity to prohibited possessor statute that could "be interpreted in two alternative ways"
citation_b.sentence: But see State v. Gore, 101 Wash.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227, 230 (1984) (applying rule of lenity to prohibited possessor statute that could "be interpreted in two alternative ways”).