in Arizona in A.R.S. § 13-204(B) (2001). See 1 Rudolph J. Gerber, Cnminal Law of Arizona § 1-204(B) (2d ed. 1993)(“The underlying assumption of this section is that the content of the criminal law approximates the average person’s actual assessment of tolerable behavior and that the citizenry knows everything needed to obey the law.”). Consequently, [a] defendant convicted of a crime created by a statute that took effect the day before he committed the crime would ordinarily have no defense of lack of fair notice, even if the enactment of the statute had received no publicity at all, so that the defendant had proceeded in warranted, perhaps indeed unavoidable, ignorance of it. Torres, 144 F.3d at 474; see also People v. Cargill, 38 Cal.App.4th 1551, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 480, 482-83 (1995)(<HOLDING>). ¶ 9 The United States Supreme Court, however,
holding to the same effect holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties holding the same holding that a defendants sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time he committed the offense holding three strikes law that went into effect immediately when filed with the secretary of state as emergency measure governed the defendants offense which occurred approximately seven and onehalf hours later that same date