Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Soria
Citations: 217 Ariz. 101; 170 P.3d 710; 518 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 17; 2007 Ariz. App. LEXIS 223Docket: No. 1 CA-CR 06-1045
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; November 27, 2007; Arizona; State Appellate Court
John David Soria, the appellant, challenges a $45 warrant fee imposed as part of his sentencing, arguing that it should not apply as he was arrested under an arrest warrant, not a bench warrant. The court agrees and vacates the fee. The background reveals that Soria was charged on September 23, 2005, with two counts of aggravated DUI. A summons sent to him was returned as undeliverable, leading to the issuance of a warrant for his arrest on January 28, 2006. Following conviction, he was sentenced to probation, including various fines and the $45 warrant fee. Soria contends the trial court erred in imposing the fee, which is tied to bench warrants as per Maricopa County Superior Court Administrative Order No. 2004-199. This order allows for fines when a defendant fails to appear in court or pay fines related to bench warrants. The court evaluates the issue under a fundamental-error standard since Soria did not raise it at trial. To establish fundamental error, he must show that the error occurred and caused prejudice, with illegal sentences generally qualifying as fundamental errors. The court interprets the administrative order as applicable only to bench warrants linked to failures to appear or pay fines, requiring prior notice to the defendant. The ruling highlights that the fee’s application is limited to defendants who have failed to comply with court directives. Defendant's summons to appear was returned undelivered, and there is no evidence indicating that he was aware of the scheduled appearance. Consequently, the imposition of a $45 warrant fee was deemed improper and illegal since Defendant did not receive notice, constituting fundamental error and prejudice. Citing precedent, the court vacated the warrant fee while affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences. The fee was established by A.R.S. 11-251.08(A) (2001), authorizing the board of supervisors to adopt fee schedules. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors authorized the $45 fee for defendants who fail to appear in court or pay fines. The procedures outlined in the Administrative Order specify that the fee should be assessed upon the issuance of a bench warrant without notifying the defendant until after their arrest. Additionally, the minute entry for the warrant failed to include the fee, violating the Administrative Order.