From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Bol

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Jan 2, 2014
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0313 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2014)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0313

01-02-2014

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MADUT BOL, Appellant.

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Spencer D. Heffel Counsel for Appellant


NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.


Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-133470-001

The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge


CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED


COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Spencer D. Heffel
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. JOHNSEN, Judge:

¶1 Madut Bol was convicted of aggravated assault and resisting arrest, Class 5 and 6 felonies, respectively. The superior court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Bol on concurrent two-year terms of probation. The court also ordered Bol to "submit to DNA testing for law enforcement identification purposes and pay the applicable fee for the cost of that testing in accordance with [Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.")] § 13-610."

¶2 On appeal, Bol does not dispute his convictions nor the terms of probation the superior court imposed. He argues only that the court erred by ordering him to pay for DNA testing pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-610 (2013). The State confesses error, acknowledging that in State v. Reyes, 232 Ariz. 468, 472, ¶ 14, 307 P.3d 35, 39 (App. 2013), this court held that A.R.S. § 13-610 does not authorize the court to impose a DNA collection fee on a convicted defendant. We agree that pursuant to Reyes, which was issued after Bol was sentenced, the court erred by imposing the collection fee. We therefore modify the judgment of conviction to omit the requirement that Bol pay the cost of DNA testing.

Absent material revision after the alleged offense, we cite a statute's current version.


Summaries of

State v. Bol

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Jan 2, 2014
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0313 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2014)
Case details for

State v. Bol

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MADUT BOL, Appellant.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Jan 2, 2014

Citations

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0313 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2014)