Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Panos

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

January 12, 2016

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
v.
THEODORE JAMES PANOS, Appellant

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. No. CR2014-112450-001. The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge.

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, By Jillian Francis, Counsel for Appellee.

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix, By Rena P. Glitsos, Counsel for Appellant.

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

OPINION

Page 1007

Kenton D. Jones, Judge:

[¶1] Theodore Panos challenges the superior court's imposition of a monthly probation service fee as a condition of his unsupervised probation. Panos argues Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-901(A),[1] which requires the fee, is unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. For the reasons that follow, we find the statute to be constitutional and affirm the imposition of the fee.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[¶2] The State initially charged Panos in the superior court with two class six felonies: possession or use of marijuana in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3405(A)(1) and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3415(A). The State later moved to designate both counts as class one misdemeanors. The court granted the motion and, following a bench trial, found Panos guilty as to each count. The court sentenced Panos to two concurrent terms of nine months' unsupervised probation and, as a condition of probation, ordered Panos to pay a monthly

Page 1008

probation service fee of sixty-five dollars pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901(A). Panos timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § § 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(4).

DISCUSSION

[¶3] The probation statute provides in relevant part: " When granting probation to an adult the court, as a condition of probation, shall assess a monthly fee of not less than sixty-five dollars." A.R.S. § 13-901(A).[2] For probation imposed in the superior court, A.R.S. § 13-901(A) makes no distinction between supervised and unsupervised probation. For probation imposed in a justice or municipal court, however, " the fee shall only be assessed when the person is placed on supervised probation." Id.

[¶4] All such probation service fees paid into the superior, justice, and municipal courts are ultimately deposited into the " adult probation services fund" and " used to supplement monies used for the salaries of adult probation and surveillance officers and for support of programs and services of the superior court adult probation departments." Id.; see also Ariz. Code of Jud. Admin. § 6-206(C) (" The probation fees account within the adult probation services fund is to be used to pay probation employee salaries and employee-related ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.