GORDON, Vice Chief Justice:
On June 24, 1981 petitioner Michelle Marie O'Hara was involved in a traffic accident that resulted in $770 damage to the other party's vehicle. O'Hara was uninsured at the time. Because she failed to comply with Arizona's financial responsibility laws in effect at the time of the accident, (see A.R.S. §§ 28-1142 to -1143, -1167, all of which were repealed by Laws 1982, ch. 298, § 5, effective January 1, 1983), O'Hara's operator's license was suspended, effective August 31, 1981.
On January 9, 1983, O'Hara was seen in Holbrook driving in an erratic manner. She was stopped and was found to be under the influence of intoxicants. Because she was driving on a suspended license, she was charged with a violation of A.R.S. § 28-692.02, which provides, in part, that:
A.R.S. § 28-692.02(A).
Trial was set for April 14, 1983. O'Hara filed a motion to dismiss. She argued that A.R.S. § 28-692.02 did not apply to her because there was no evidence that she had previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated. The state opposed the motion. In a formal order entered on April 14, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. O'Hara filed this special action on August 5 on the ground that the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. See Ariz.R.P.Sp.Act. 3.
We accepted this special action in order to examine and clarify A.R.S. § 28-692.02. This section has undergone several changes since it was enacted in 1972 and it is our duty to give the public a clear statement of the scope and meaning of statutes. White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 358 P.2d 712 (1961). Jurisdiction is found pursuant to the Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(a) and Ariz.R.P. Sp.Act. 8. The following two questions are presented by this special action:
I. DOES A.R.S. § 28-692.02 APPLY TO A PERSON WHO COMMITS HER FIRST OFFENSE OF DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH HER LICENSE IS SUSPENDED?
O'Hara contends that, broken down into its parts, A.R.S. § 28-692.02(A) must be read to say:
As an alternative argument, however, O'Hara asserts that if the Court finds that the proposed construction of § 28-692.02 is not "patently clear," then it must find that § 28-692.02 is "so unclear" that it is unconstitutionally vague and therefore in violation of A.R.S. § 13-101(2).
The state agrees that A.R.S. § 28-692.02 is clear. However, it contests O'Hara's reading on the ground that her reading renders the phrase "and who commits an offense in violation of § 28-692 during the period of such suspension" meaningless and superfluous. In light of the established presumption in this state that each provision in a statute has a meaning and purpose, the state claims that A.R.S. § 28-692.02, properly read, provides that:
The state argues that the Legislature obviously intended that a person who commits a violation of § 28-692 during a period of suspension is guilty of a class 5 felony whether or not that person has committed a previous offense in violation of § 28-692. The state also argues that the legislative intent to distinguish persons who drive while drunk during the period in which their licenses are suspended from persons who drive while drunk even though they have never applied for or obtained a license or reapplied for a license after a period of suspension has expired is clear. In support of its position, the state cites State v. Geschwind, 136 Ariz. 360, 666 P.2d 460 (1983). In that case, the defendant was arrested on November 6, 1981 and charged with both DWI on a suspended license and DWI without a license pursuant to the version of A.R.S. § 28-692.02 in effect at that time.
The state admits that Geschwind was concerned with A.R.S. § 28-692.02 as it existed in 1981, but submits that the 1982 amendments did not affect any substantive changes. Instead, the Legislature made two simple additions. First, it added "cancelled" to the types of actions taken against a license that will subject the holder of such a license to the rigors of § 28-692.02 if she commits a DWI. Second, it added persons who "never reapplied for or obtained a license after suspension, cancellation, revocation
Though the Legislature could have used more care in making its most recent amendments to A.R.S. § 28-692.02, we find the statute susceptible to a sensible construction and will not, therefore, declare it invalid. State v. Valenzuela, 116 Ariz. 61, 567 P.2d 1190 (1977); Adams v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ariz.App. 289, 547 P.2d 1089, vacated on other grounds, 113 Ariz. 294, 552 P.2d 764 (1976). In light of both the structure of § 28-692.02 and prior versions of § 28-692.02, we hold that A.R.S. § 28-692.02 applies to a person charged with his or her first DWI offense during a period of suspension.
We agree with the state's argument that O'Hara's reading is improper because it would render part of A.R.S. § 28-692.02 meaningless and superfluous. If the phrase "who commits a second offense in violation of § 28-692" was intended to apply to "a person whose operator's license was suspended, cancelled, revoked or refused", the phrase "and who commits an offense in violation of § 28-692" would be, at best, redundant. In interpreting statutes, we assume the Legislature avoids redundancy in favor of concision. State v. Wise, 137 Ariz. 468, 671 P.2d 909 (1983); State v. Edwards, 103 Ariz. 487, 489, 446 P.2d 1, 3 (1968) ("The presumption is that legislatures do not include in statutes provisions which are redundant, void, inert and trivial.").
Examination and comparison of the 1978 and 1982 versions of A.R.S. § 28-692.02 lead us to conclude that the 1982 amendments were intended to fill in gaps that emerged upon application of the 1978 version. By adding "cancelled" to the statute, the Legislature expressed its determination that a person who drives while intoxicated on a license that has been cancelled deserves the same punishment as a person who drives while intoxicated on a license that has been suspended, revoked or refused.
Persons who drive notwithstanding suspension, cancellation, revocation, or refusal of their right to do so are acting in clear defiance of Department of Transportation orders. On the other hand, persons who drive without having applied for or obtained licenses in compliance with Arizona law are not. Such persons are acting in violation of the general law, but they are not acting in defiance of orders directed specifically to them. We find that the legislative decision to apply different prerequisites to these two classes is reasonable and, therefore, in compliance with law. See State v. Sanchez, 110 Ariz. 214, 516 P.2d 1226 (1973) (§ 28-692.02 does not violate due process because classification is neither arbitrary nor unreasonably defined and the state has valid and continuing interest in maintaining it.).
We hold that A.R.S. § 28-692.02, as amended by Laws of 1982, ch. 234, § 9, creates the crime of felonious DWI and sets out two ways in which it can be committed. First, a person commits felony DWI if that person drives while intoxicated during the period in which his or her operator's or chauffeur's license is suspended, cancelled, revoked or refused.
II. DOES A.R.S. § 28-692.02 APPLY TO A PERSON WHOSE LICENSE WAS SUSPENDED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARIZONA'S FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWS?
In its 1982 amendments to A.R.S. § 28-692.02, the Legislature added subsection (B), effective July 24, 1982. Subsection (B) provides that "[t]he suspension, cancellation, revocation or refusal of an operator's or chauffeur's license is effective as provided in § 28-446." See Laws 1982, ch. 234, § 9.
A.R.S. § 28-446, "Authority of Department [of Transportation] to suspend or revoke license or require attendance at driver improvement school," at the time of O'Hara's charge, provided in part that:
O'Hara was arrested for her first DWI on January 9, 1983. Therefore, she is subject to § 28-692.02 only if her license had been suspended on one of the grounds enumerated in § 28-446. Because O'Hara's license was suspended for failure to comply with the financial responsibility laws in effect at the time her license was suspended (See A.R.S. § 28-1142, repealed by Laws 1982, ch. 298, § 5, effective January 1, 1983), and such failure is not one of the grounds enumerated in § 28-446, O'Hara cannot be properly charged with a violation of § 28-692.02.
HOLOHAN, C.J., and HAYS, CAMERON and FELDMAN, JJ., concur.