PHOENIX (AP) -- Arizona's appeals court on Thursday upheld the conviction of an illegal immigrant prosecuted as a conspirator under the state's human-smuggling law.

The court found that the law's wording is clear and unambiguous - illegal immigrants can be convicted for conspiracy to smuggle themselves into the country.

The defendant, Juan Barragan-Sierra of Mexico, had argued that the Arizona Legislature didn't intend to punish anyone but smugglers when it passed the law.

The 2005 law made it a state crime to smuggle humans, already a federal crime.

But under a disputed interpretation by Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, more than 650 immigrants themselves have been charged and convicted of violating the law as conspirators. Convictions can bring up to two years in prison.

Barragan-Sierra, 23, had admitted paying a smuggler $2,000 to be taken into the U.S. in June 2006.

"A person may commit conspiracy to commit an offense - in this case, human smuggling - even if he cannot be convicted of the offense itself," according to the ruling. "When appellant agreed to be transported illegally into the United States from San Luis, Mexico for a $2,000 fee, followed a person across the border through the desert on foot, and hid in a van and a truck as the group traveled north through Maricopa County, where he was stopped and arrested, he met all of the elements of conspiracy to commit human smuggling."

The appellate court also disagreed with Barragan-Sierra's contention that federal immigration law pre-empts the state law. The court said states' police powers encompass human smuggling, and Arizona's law isn't trying to regulate immigration - a federal concern.

Thomas called the court's ruling intellectually courageous.

"It's another historic milestone in the fight against illegal immigration, and it shows that Maricopa County continues to lead the way in that effort," he said.

He added that law-enforcement agencies in the state besides the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office also should arrest illegal immigrants under the law. "They've got no more excuses now," he said.

Peter Schey, president of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law - which is challenging the law as it applies to immigrants at the federal level - said the appellate court "has really distorted the purpose of the law."

"The court has bent over backwards to reach a decision that was not intended by the Legislature," he said. "The law was to penalize criminals engaged in the smuggling of immigrants for gain."

He added that the court was inaccurate in its decision that the federal law doesn't pre-empt the state law.

"In this case the federal government has enacted a wide range of laws that address both illegal entry into the United States, as well as smuggling," he said. "The Arizona law as construed by the court of appeals can easily interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration laws."

---

The case is State vs. Barragan-Sierra, 1 CA-CR 07-0048.

---

On the Net:

Arizona Court of Appeals Division One: http://www.cofad1.state.az.us

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.