FILED BY CLERK
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF ARIZONA APR -8 2013
DIVISION TWO
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION TWO
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, )
)
Appellee, ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0153
) DEPARTMENT B
v. )
) OPINION
ALBERT JUNIOR LOPEZ, )
)
Appellant. )
)
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR20104304001
Honorable Teresa Godoy, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART
Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General
By Joseph T. Maziarz and David A. Sullivan Tucson
Attorneys for Appellee
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender
By Abigail Jensen Tucson
Attorneys for Appellant
V Á S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge.
¶1 Appellant Albert Lopez was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a
narcotic drug and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him to
mitigated, concurrent prison terms, the longest of which is seven years. The court also
reduced various fines, fees, and assessments to a criminal restitution order (CRO), further
ordering that “no interest, penalties, or collection fees” would accrue “while the
defendant is in the Department of Corrections.” On appeal, Lopez asserts the court was
not permitted to reduce the monetary penalties to a CRO until his sentences had expired
and the CRO must therefore be vacated. We vacate the CRO but otherwise affirm
Lopez’s convictions and sentences.
¶2 In State v. Lewandowski, this court held that A.R.S. § 13-805,1 which
governs the entry of CROs, applies only at the expiration of a defendant’s sentence or
probation. 220 Ariz. 531, ¶ 15, 207 P.3d 784, 789 (App. 2009). We reasoned the
imposition of a CRO before the defendant’s probation or sentence has expired
“constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error,”
because the premature accrual of interest obligates the defendant to pay more than § 13-
805 requires. Id. Thus, as the state concedes, the trial court’s reduction of the fees, fines,
and assessments against Lopez to a CRO at sentencing was improper.
1
Section 13-805 has been amended three times since Lopez committed the
offenses here. See 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 269, § 1; 2011 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 263, §
1 and ch. 99, § 4. We refer to the version in effect at the time of his offenses, see 2005
Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 260, § 6, but observe that, on these facts, the result would be the
same under the current version.
2
¶3 The state asserts, however, that we need not vacate the CRO because Lopez
did not object at sentencing and therefore has not met on appeal his burden of
demonstrating any error prejudiced him. In most circumstances, a defendant’s failure to
object to alleged error in the trial court forfeits review for all but fundamental, prejudicial
error. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 19-20, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005). But
this court held in State v. Vermuele that fundamental error review does not apply when
the “alleged [sentencing] error[] . . . did not become apparent until the trial court
pronounced sentence.” 226 Ariz. 399, ¶ 14, 249 P.3d 1099, 1103 (App. 2011). Nothing
in the record suggests Lopez had an opportunity to raise this error until the court
pronounced that sentence. Accordingly, Lopez need not demonstrate resulting prejudice.
¶4 As the state correctly points out, however, sentencing error may be subject
to harmless error review. See Lewandowski, 220 Ariz. 531, ¶ 10, 207 P.3d at 788; see
also Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶ 18, 115 P.3d at 607 (state has burden of demonstrating
harmless error). The state asserts the error here is harmless because the trial court further
ordered that no interest would accrue until Lopez’s sentence had expired. Thus, the state
reasons, the harm described in Lewandowski is not present in this case because no
premature interest will accrue.
¶5 But we agree with Lopez that the trial court lacked authority to delay the
imposition of interest, just as it lacked authority to enter a CRO in the first instance.
Nothing in § 13-805 permits a court to delay or alter the accrual of interest when a CRO
is “recorded and enforced as any civil judgment” pursuant to § 13-805(C). We are
extremely reluctant to deem an unauthorized act harmless because of a second
3
unauthorized act. And we decline to speculate whether the court’s attempt to delay the
accrual of interest would be of any legal effect should we permit the unauthorized CRO
to remain. Cf. Jackson v. Schneider, 207 Ariz. 325, ¶ 10, 86 P.3d 381, 383-84 (App.
2004) (when trial court exceeds sentencing authority, sentence void as to excess portion).
Finally, should Lopez pay any of the fines, fees, or assessments while incarcerated, the
CRO would be inaccurate at the completion of his sentence. Thus, we conclude the state
has not met its burden of demonstrating the error is harmless. See Henderson, 210 Ariz.
561, ¶ 18, 115 P.3d at 607.
¶6 The CRO is vacated. Lopez’s convictions and sentences are otherwise
affirmed.
/s/ Garye L. Vásquez
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
/s/ Philip G. Espinosa
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
/s/ Michael Miller
MICHAEL MILLER, Judge
4