Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. Grijalva

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

March 7, 2017

The State of Arizona, Respondent,
Juan Antonio Grijalva, Petitioner.

         Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20122348001 The Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge

          Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Respondent

          Steven R. Sonenberg, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Petitioner

          Judge Miller authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred.


          MILLER, Judge

         ¶1 Petitioner Juan Grijalva seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. "We will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Grijalva has not sustained his burden of establishing such abuse here.

         ¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Grijalva was convicted of theft of a means of transportation. The trial court imposed a minimum, 2.5-year term of imprisonment in October 2012. The state requested restitution for the victim's insurance company in the amount of $3, 045.58. Defense counsel indicated she had not seen supporting documentation of the claim. The court suggested that she contact the prosecutor to work out a stipulation and gave the parties thirty days to file it. The court further ordered that it "retain[ed] jurisdiction over the issue of restitution" and that counsel should "submit a stipulation regarding the amount of restitution owed."

         ¶3 In March 2014, the state filed a motion for restitution, and the court ordered Grijalva to pay $3, 045.58 to the insurance company.[1] Grijalva filed an opposition to the motion, and the court held a hearing at which it vacated its restitution order and gave the parties two weeks "to request a hearing or to submit a stipulation as to the amount of restitution." The court filed an under-advisement ruling in May affirming its earlier grant and ordering the same amount of restitution to the insurance company.

         ¶4 Later in May, Grijalva filed a notice of post-conviction relief, arguing in his petition that the trial court had lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution order and, in any event, the amount of restitution was too high. He also argued the court had erred in entering a criminal restitution order (CRO). The trial court granted relief insofar as it vacated the CRO for "fines, fees, and assessments, " but otherwise summarily denied relief, and denied Grijalva's subsequent motion for reconsideration as well.

         ¶5 On review, Grijalva again contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction "to modify" his sentence by adding restitution. He argues the court could only add restitution by means of Rule 24.3, Ariz. R. Crim. P., additionally contending a sentence may only be changed if it is illegal and the correction is made within sixty days.

         ¶6 In arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award restitution more than sixty days after the oral pronouncement of judgment, Grijalva relies on this court's statement in State v. Serrano, that a "judgment and sentence are 'complete and valid' upon oral pronouncement, and cannot be modified thereafter except as provided by Rule 24.3, Ariz. R. Crim. P." 234 Ariz. 491, ¶ 9, 323 P.3d 774, 777 (App. 2014) (citation omitted), quoting Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.16(a). Rule 24.3 provides, in relevant part, that a "court may correct any unlawful sentence or one imposed in an unlawful manner within 60 days of the entry of judgment and sentence but before the defendant's appeal, if any, is perfected."

         ¶7 Serrano holds that a court lacks authority to later modify a defendant's sentence to require him to register as a sex offender. 234 Ariz. 491, ¶ 9, 323 P.3d at 777. We explained that a registration requirement was not mandatory for Serrano's offense, but could have been imposed, in the court's discretion, had the state raised the issue at sentencing. Id. ¶ 7. Therefore, because the sentences originally imposed by the court "were not unlawful, . . . [n]or . . . imposed without regard for statutory and procedural rules, " we concluded "[t]he absence of a registration order . . . did not allow the court to modify the judgment or sentences under Rule 24.3." Id. ¶ 11.

         ¶8 The discretionary registration order in Serrano, as well as the order expunging a DNA[2] profile in State v. Bryant, 219 Ariz. 514, 200 P.3d 1011 (App. 2008), on which Grijalva also relies, were modifications of the "complete and valid" sentences imposed earlier. Id., quoting Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.16(a). In contrast, the restitution order here did not constitute a modification or correction of a sentence and judgment; rather, the trial court expressly reserved jurisdiction to later order restitution, which it was required to impose upon the presentation of sufficient evidence. See State v. Holguin, 177 Ariz. 589, 591, 870 P.2d 407, 409 (App. 1993).

         ¶9 We also find Serrano inapposite because we relied on the legislature's "clear intent that any discretionary order that a person register as a sex offender must occur at the time of sentencing." 234 Ariz. 491, ¶ 13, 323 P.3d at 778. In contrast, A.R.S. § 13-603(C), which requires the trial court to impose restitution, "is silent as to when restitution must be assessed, " notwithstanding that restitution generally "is ordered at the time of sentencing" - if the court has ...

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.