Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division, Department A
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20102400001 Honorable Teresa Godoy, Judge Pro Tempore
Law Offices of Cornelia Wallis Honchar, P.C. By Cornelia Wallis Honchar Tucson Attorney for Appellant
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Jacob Odom was convicted of two counts of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to enhanced, presumptive, concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 15.75 years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she "has reviewed the record" and has found no "arguable question of law" to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Odom has not filed a supplemental brief
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed Odom and another man had stolen a wallet and a vehicle from one individual and a wallet and bike from another individual. A gun was used in both robberies.
¶3 Odom's sentences are within the statutory limit and were imposed lawfully. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703; 13-704; 13-1204(A)(2), (D); 13-1902; 13-1903; 13-1904. The sentencing minute entry, however, provides that the "fines, fees, assessments and/or restitution" the court had imposed were "reduced to a Criminal Restitution Order [CRO]." But this court has determined that, based on A.R.S. § 13-805(C), "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, 909 (App. 2013), quoting State v. Lewandowski, 220 Ariz. 531, ¶ 15, 207 P.3d 784, 789 (App. 2009). Therefore, the CRO ...