Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0230
11-14-2013
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DENNIS CHAMBERS, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, By Michael T. O'Toole Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office By Christopher V. Johns 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NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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. CR2012-138878-001
The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge
CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Michael T. O'Toole
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Christopher V. Johns
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. JOHNSEN, Chief Judge:
¶1 Dennis Chambers was convicted of third-degree burglary with two prior felony convictions. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and was ordered to "submit to DNA testing for law enforcement identification purposes and pay the applicable fee for the cost of that testing."
¶2 On appeal, Chambers does not dispute his convictions nor the term of incarceration the superior court imposed. He argues only that the court erred by ordering him to pay for DNA testing pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 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 Chambers was sentenced, the court erred by imposing the collection fee. We therefore modify the judgment of conviction to omit the requirement that Chambers pay for the cost of DNA testing.
Absent material revision after the alleged offense, we cite a statute's current version.
¶3 For the reasons stated, we affirm Chambers's conviction and sentence as modified.