Filed: May 21, 2014
Latest Update: May 21, 2014
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. MEMORANDUM DECISION ECKERSTROM, Judge. 1 Appellant Sara Golden was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder and kidnapping and was sentenced to prison terms of life with the possibility of release after twenty-five years, and a consecutive prison term of five years. 1 On appeal she contends the
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. MEMORANDUM DECISION ECKERSTROM, Judge. 1 Appellant Sara Golden was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder and kidnapping and was sentenced to prison terms of life with the possibility of release after twenty-five years, and a consecutive prison term of five years. 1 On appeal she contends the t..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ECKERSTROM, Judge.
¶1 Appellant Sara Golden was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder and kidnapping and was sentenced to prison terms of life with the possibility of release after twenty-five years, and a consecutive prison term of five years.1 On appeal she contends the trial court erred when it entered a criminal restitution order (CRO). The state concedes the court erred. We vacate the CRO in the sentencing minute entry, but otherwise affirm.
¶2 In its January 2013 sentencing minute entry, the trial court ordered Golden to pay certain fees and assessments, adding, "[A]ll fines, fees, assessments and/or restitution are reduced to a Criminal Restitution Order, with no interest, penalties or collection fees to accrue while the defendant is in the Department of Corrections."2 As Golden correctly asserts, former A.R.S. § 13-805(A), which applied when she was sentenced, provided for a CRO to be entered for any unpaid fees, assessments, and restitution "[a]t the time the defendant completes the defendant's period of probation or the defendant's sentence." 2011 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 263, § 1. As this court repeatedly has determined, based on the statute, "the imposition of a CRO before the defendant's probation or sentence has expired `constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.'" State v. Lopez, 231 Ariz. 561, ¶ 2, 298 P.3d 909, 910 (App. 2013), quoting State v. Lewandowski, 220 Ariz. 531, ¶ 15, 207 P.3d 784, 789 (App. 2009). Because this portion of the sentencing minute entry is not authorized by statute, we must vacate the CRO. See id. ¶¶ 5-6.
¶3 We note that although the statute has been amended to permit the entry of a CRO for restitution at sentencing, see 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 269, § 1, Golden was sentenced on January 28, 2013, before the effective date of that amendment. See State v. Cota, 234 Ariz. 180, ¶ 1, 319 P.3d 242, 243 (App. 2014). Therefore, although we affirm Golden's convictions and sentences, we vacate the CRO in the sentencing minute entry.
