State v. O'Guin

Court of Appeals of Arizona

State v. O'Guin

811 P.2d 790, 168 Ariz. 127, 87 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 54, 1991 Ariz. App. LEXIS 124

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedApril 30, 1991

DocketNo. 2 CA-CR 90-0646

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 811 P.2d 790 (State v. O'Guin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. O'Guin, 811 P.2d 790, 168 Ariz. 127, 87 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 54, 1991 Ariz. App. LEXIS 124 (Ark. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to simple assault. He was placed on probation for three years and ordered to pay a $500 fine plus surcharges of $185, and $8 to the Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund, “said fine to be paid in [128]*128monthly installments based on the defendant’s income and ability to pay as determined by the probation officer.”

On appeal, appellant first contends that the trial court erred in not setting the precise amount and number of monthly payments by which his fine is to be paid. We agree. A.R.S. § 13-808 does not allow a court to delegate the responsibility to determine the manner of the payment of a fine, similar to the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-603(C) which does not allow the court to delegate the responsibility for determining the payment of restitution. State v. Phillips, 152 Ariz. 533, 733 P.2d 1116 (1987). The case must be remanded to allow the trial court to determine the manner of payment.

Additionally, appellant is correct that the trial court erred in ordering the entire amount of his $8 time payment fee to be paid to the Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund. The time payment fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-116 is to be allocated with $3 earmarked for the fund, $2 allocated to the Public Defender Training Fund, and $3 in this case to the Pima County Superior Court. Upon remand, the trial court shall order the proper division of the time payment fee.

We have reviewed the record for fundamental error and have found none. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. The imposition of the probationary term is also affirmed, but the trial court’s order regarding payment of the fine and the time payment fee are vacated, and the case is remanded to allow the trial court to reimpose the charges in a manner consistent with this decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to simple assault. He was placed on probation for three years and ordered to pay a $500 fine plus surcharges of $185, and $8 to the Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund, “said fine to be paid in [128]*128monthly installments based on the defendant’s income and ability to pay as determined by the probation officer.”

On appeal, appellant first contends that the trial court erred in not setting the precise amount and number of monthly payments by which his fine is to be paid. We agree. A.R.S. § 13-808 does not allow a court to delegate the responsibility to determine the manner of the payment of a fine, similar to the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-603(C) which does not allow the court to delegate the responsibility for determining the payment of restitution. State v. Phillips, 152 Ariz. 533, 733 P.2d 1116 (1987). The case must be remanded to allow the trial court to determine the manner of payment.

Additionally, appellant is correct that the trial court erred in ordering the entire amount of his $8 time payment fee to be paid to the Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund. The time payment fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-116 is to be allocated with $3 earmarked for the fund, $2 allocated to the Public Defender Training Fund, and $3 in this case to the Pima County Superior Court. Upon remand, the trial court shall order the proper division of the time payment fee.

We have reviewed the record for fundamental error and have found none. Therefore, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. The imposition of the probationary term is also affirmed, but the trial court’s order regarding payment of the fine and the time payment fee are vacated, and the case is remanded to allow the trial court to reimpose the charges in a manner consistent with this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

811 P.2d 790, 168 Ariz. 127, 87 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 54, 1991 Ariz. App. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-oguin-arizctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack