Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; November 17, 1987; Arizona; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed in accordance with Anders v. California and State v. Leon, with the defendant’s counsel finding no reversible error after reviewing the case. The defendant, Michael Charles Weston, faced charges of trespass, criminal damage, and assault, ultimately pleading guilty to criminal damage and assault. The plea agreement stipulated a three-year probation term with three months in jail, to run concurrently with another case. The state agreed to dismiss the trespass charge and not allege prior convictions.
During the proceedings, the trial court confirmed the defendant’s understanding of the plea, ensuring it was knowing, voluntary, and based on facts. Sentencing included two years of probation for criminal damage and three years for assault, with credit for jail time served. Weston was ordered to pay $46 in restitution—$40 for window repair due to criminal damage and $6 for a healthcare visit related to the assault. Although the plea agreement did not explicitly require restitution, Arizona law mandates it, and the trial judge informed Weston of this condition prior to acceptance of the plea.
The court found no reversible error regarding the omission of restitution from the plea agreement but considered whether Weston could plead guilty without knowing the restitution amount. Citing prior case law, the court noted that a defendant cannot be required to pay more than the statutory limits without their informed consent. In this case, while the specific restitution amount was not known to Weston at the time of the plea, the court concluded that he was aware restitution would be required, thus validating the plea.
In Phillips, the court established that a defendant must be aware of the specific dollar amounts of restitution before a guilty plea can be considered voluntary and intelligent. Although the defendant in this case was not informed of a specific restitution amount, he pled guilty to a crime with statutorily defined monetary limits—criminal damage of $100 or less under A.R.S. 13-1602. This allowed the defendant to reasonably estimate his maximum restitution at $100. The court imposed a lesser restitution of $46, primarily related to the criminal damage charge.
Regarding the assault charge, which imposed a $6 restitution, the court noted that assault lacks defined monetary parameters, making it impossible for the defendant to reasonably calculate his restitution. However, given the minimal amount, the court concluded that the restitution was within the realm of what the defendant could have anticipated as a medical consequence.
The court conducted a review for fundamental, reversible error and found none. It affirmed the conviction and probation, directing counsel to inform the defendant of his appeal status and options, including the possibility of a pro per motion for reconsideration or a petition for review within 30 days. The decision noted that changes to the statute since the Lukens case do not impact this analysis.
