Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0484
04-21-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JASON MICHAEL RIDDLE, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By William Scott Simon Counsel for Appellee Yuma County Public Defender's Office, Yuma By Edward F. McGee Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County
No. S1400CR201101572
The Honorable Lawrence C. Kenworthy, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By William Scott Simon
Counsel for Appellee
Yuma County Public Defender's Office, Yuma
By Edward F. McGee
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.
NORRIS, Judge:
¶1 Jason Michael Riddle appeals from the revocation of his probation and resulting prison sentence. On appeal, Riddle argues the superior court should not have ordered him to pay restitution to the Yuma County Attorney's Office, when, in May 2012, it placed him on probation. This issue is not properly before us.
¶2 In March 2012, Riddle pled guilty to aggravated assault with sexual motivation, a class 6 undesignated felony. In May 2012, the superior court entered judgment, suspended sentence, placed Riddle on three years' supervised probation, and ordered him to pay $1,300 in restitution to the Yuma County Attorney's Office. The court revoked Riddle's probation in October 2013, sentenced him to one year of imprisonment, and ordered him to pay the unpaid balance of assessments previously ordered, including the accrued restitution balance of $1,230.
¶3 Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-4033(A)(3) (2010), provides that an appeal may be taken by a defendant from "[a]n order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the party," which allows for an appeal of the revocation of probation and resulting prison sentence. This provision, however, does not allow an untimely appeal from the imposition of restitution, because the effect on Riddle's rights "occurred when the condition was first imposed." State v. Gessner, 128 Ariz. 487, 488-89, 626 P.2d 1119, 1120-21 (App. 1981) (defendant waived appeal of restitution order when it was first imposed and accordingly was barred from challenging it on modification of unrelated probation conditions); see State v. Herrera, 121 Ariz. 12, 14, 588 P.2d 305, 307 (1978) (notice of appeal after revocation of probation was untimely to challenge original judgment); State v. Pill, 5 Ariz. App. 277, 278, 425 P.2d 588, 589 (1967) (statute providing for appeals from certain post-judgment orders "was not intended to provide a means of procuring successive appeals from the same judgment"). Because the superior court imposed the restitution order in May 2012, Riddle is barred from challenging it in what legally can only be an appeal from the revocation of his probation and the resulting sentence in 2013. Thus, Riddle's argument that the superior court should
not have ordered him to pay restitution to the Yuma County Attorney's Office is not properly before us.
¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court's revocation of Riddle's probation and resulting prison sentence.