from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No.
P1300CR201701095 The Honorable Patricia A. Trebesch, Judge,
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Eric
Knobloch Counsel for Appellee
Alex Harris PC, Chino Valley By M. Alex Harris Counsel for
Michael J. Brown delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Jennifer M.
We address here whether the superior court lawfully imposed a
"time payment fee" and a "criminal restitution
order" at sentencing following Joseph E. Dustin's
conviction for unlawful flight from a pursuing law
enforcement vehicle. We consider other issues Dustin raises
in a separate memorandum decision. See Ariz. R. Sup.
Ct. 111(a)(2), (h); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(f). For the
following reasons, we affirm the court's imposition of
the time payment fee but vacate the criminal restitution
The State charged Dustin with one count of unlawful flight
from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 felony.
After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the superior court
sentenced Dustin to prison. The court imposed no fine
authorized by A.R.S. § 13-801, but it
ordered Dustin to pay the following: a time payment fee of
$20; a public defender assessment fee of $25; a probation
assessment (formerly known as a probation surcharge) of $20;
a penalty assessment of $13; and a victim rights enforcement
assessment of $2. The court then reduced the monetary
obligations to a criminal restitution order
("CRO"). Dustin timely appealed.
Time Payment Fee
Dustin argues the superior court erred by imposing a time
payment fee because there was no corresponding penalty, fine
or sanction that triggered statutory authorization of the
fee. See A.R.S. § 12-116. Because Dustin did
not object at sentencing, we review for fundamental error.
State v. McDonagh, 232 Ariz. 247, 248, ¶ 7
(App. 2013). If the time payment fee was not authorized by
statute, it constitutes an illegal sentence, and the court
fundamentally erred in imposing it. Id. at 248-49
(concluding that imposing "an unauthorized fine renders
a criminal sentence illegal," which "constitutes
We review the interpretation of statutes de novo. State
v. Francis, 243 Ariz. 434, 435, ¶ 6
(2018). "When the statutory language is clear and has
only one reasonable construction, we apply it according to
its plain meaning." Id. We construe related
statutes together, "seeking to give meaning to all
Our legislature has mandated that trial courts impose a time
payment fee under the following circumstances:
In addition to any other assessment authorized by law, a
fee of twenty dollars shall be assessed on each person who
pays a court ordered penalty, fine or sanction on a time
payment basis, including parking penalties, restitution
and juvenile monetary assessments. A time payment basis shall
be any penalty, fine or sanction not paid in full on the date
the court imposed the fine, penalty or sanction.
Notwithstanding any other law, the time ...