Opinion
No. 1 CA-SA 14-0095
06-17-2014
ELISE M. TOWNSEND, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE CELÉ HANCOCK, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of YAVAPAI, Respondent Judge, STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. SHEILA SULLIVAN POLK, Yavapai County Attorney, Real Party in Interest.
Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix By Jean-Jacques Cabou, Thomas D. Ryerson Co-counsel for Petitioner Law Offices of John M. Sears, P.C., Prescott By John M. Sears Co-counsel for Petitioner Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott By George D. Rodriguez Counsel for Real Party in Interest
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR20090855
The Honorable Celé Hancock, Judge
JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix
By Jean-Jacques Cabou, Thomas D. Ryerson
Co-counsel for Petitioner
Law Offices of John M. Sears, P.C., Prescott
By John M. Sears
Co-counsel for Petitioner
Yavapai County Attorney's Office, Prescott
By George D. Rodriguez
Counsel for Real Party in Interest
DECISION ORDER
Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined. SWANN, Judge:
¶1 The court considered this special action at conference on June 11, 2014. After consideration, and for the reasons that follow,
IT IS ORDERED accepting jurisdiction and denying relief.
¶2 Elise M. Townsend petitions for special action relief from the superior court's order of restitution, entered on January 16, 2014, and its order denying her petition to modify restitution, entered on April 17, 2014.
¶3 We accept jurisdiction because Townsend lacks a remedy by direct appeal. See State v. Hovey, 175 Ariz. 219, 220, 854 P.2d 1205, 1206 (App. 1993) (holding that court of appeals is without jurisdiction to consider trial court's order modifying restitution, but proceeding to treat matter as special action).
¶4 The trial judge performed an extensive analysis of the evidence that Townsend chose to provide as foundation for the January 16 order of restitution. In her subsequent petition to modify restitution, and in this petition for special action, Townsend alleges that the court made several errors in its calculation of the restitution amount. In light of the sparse record before us, our review of the court's calculation would necessarily be speculative.
¶5 In denying Townsend's petition to modify restitution, the court stated:
The Court conducted an extremely detailed analysis of the documents provided by and stipulated to by the Parties. Had the Defendant provided additional documentation for the Court's review, the Court would have included thatTownsend contends that the court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the additional evidence submitted with her modification petition. The additional evidence purports to establish that the court misconstrued Townsend's income for the time period preceding the restitution order. But the court gave Townsend numerous opportunities to submit related evidence before it ordered restitution, which she failed to do and instead stipulated to other evidence in lieu of a restitution hearing. Moreover, the additional evidence fails to show that Townsend's financial circumstances have changed substantially since the court entered the restitution order. If Townsend has become unable to afford the monthly restitution amount, she should file a new petition to modify restitution supported by evidence of changed circumstances. See A.R.S. § 13-804(M).
documentation in its analysis. The Defendant did not provide such documentation and the Court will not now consider additional information.
¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we accept jurisdiction and deny all relief requested in the petition for special action.