Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0120-PR
09-14-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JOAN CAROL BROWN-BREAULT, AKA JOAN CAROL OBERY, Petitioner.
Joan Obery, Tucson In Propria Persona
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED FOR PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY.
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(a)(3); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(2); Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 7(g), (i).
Special Action Proceeding
Pima County Cause No. CR044981001
The Honorable Danelle B. Liwski, Judge
JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF DENIED
Joan Obery, Tucson
In Propria Persona
DECISION ORDER
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision order of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
STARING, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Joan Obery seeks review of the trial court's order denying her motion asking the court to waive fines and fees resulting from her conviction of solicitation to possess a narcotic drug. Because her request is not a cognizable claim for relief under Rule 32, and because she has no remedy by appeal, we deem her petition as seeking special action review. See A.R.S. § 13-4033(A); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1; Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 1(a); State v. Aguilar, 170 Ariz. 292, 295 (App. 1991) ("[W]hen Rule 32 provides a petitioner with no avenue for relief, a petition for special action may also be appropriate."). In our discretion, we accept jurisdiction but deny relief.
¶2 In 1994, Obery pled guilty to solicitation to possess a narcotic drug. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence, placing Obery on a three-year term of probation and imposed a $2,000 fine, noting it had "waived surcharges over the State's objection." In early 1998, the trial court discharged Obery from probation, ordering that her remaining fines and fees be reduced to a civil judgment. In 2003, the court set aside the judgment of guilt, "releas[ing]" Obery "from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the conviction" except for enumerated fines not applicable here, and restoring her civil rights.
¶3 In 2018, Obery filed a request in her criminal case to waive "all fines [and] fees" because her case "is over 20 years old" and she was "not working." The trial court denied that request, noting that the "fines and fees outstanding in this case were imposed as a statutorily mandatory fine imposed in all drug cases" and, thus, "this Court is without the authority to waive the financial penalties imposed." This petition for review followed.
¶4 On review, Obery again asks that we "vacate or greatly reduce" her outstanding fines and fees. Below or on review, however, Obery has cited no authority, and we find none, that would permit a trial court in a criminal action to waive unpaid fines and fees after they have been reduced to a civil judgment pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-805(C). See A.R.S.
§ 13-805(A) (trial court retains jurisdiction over "the manner in which court-ordered payments are made until paid in full or until the defendant's sentence expires").
¶5 Accordingly, although we accept special action jurisdiction, we deny relief.