Our holding that SB 1145 did not apply retroactively rested solely on A.R.S. § 1-244 and the Legislature’s failure to expressly declare in SB 1145 that it applied to offenses committed before its effective date. Garcia, 214 Ariz. at 252-53 ¶¶ 7-11, 151 P.3d at 535-36. ¶ 11 Nor did Garcia suggest that “at no time in the future could the Legislature make [SB 1145] retroactive.” Rios, 225 Ariz. at 299-300 ¶ 25, 237 P.3d at 1059-60. Thus, the Legislature’s later enactment of SB 1449 did not “overrule” Garcia. Although SB 1449 was enacted in response to Garcia, every legislative enactment retroactively changing a court’s pronouncement on a statute is not a per se separation of powers violation. See, e.g., Hale v. Wellpinit Sch. Dist. No. 19, 165 Wash.2d 494, 198 P.3d 1021, 1027-28 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the Legislature does not violate
holding legislatures retroactive amendment of statutory definition which rejected court interpretation did not violate separation of powers recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers holding that statute that retroactively reduced penalties for drug offenses did not violate separation of powers recognizing separation of powers doctrine