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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

TERESA MARIE JAIME, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0676

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201401484

The Honorable Lee F. Jantzen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Michael F. Valenzuela

Counsel for Appellee

Mohave County Legal Advocate’s Office, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. JAIME

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Donn Kessler joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 Teresa Marie Jaime (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s 

sentencing order requiring her to pay a total of $500.00 in attorneys’ fees 

and $65.00 per month in probation fees. For the following reasons, we 

affirm the decision of the trial court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 A Mohave County Sherriff’s deputy stopped defendant for a 

traffic violation in January 2014. The deputy saw a marijuana pipe in plain 

view in defendant’s driver’s compartment. Defendant admitted that the 

pipe contained marijuana and gave the deputy consent to search her 

vehicle. The deputy then found a methamphetamine pipe containing .14 

grams of methamphetamine in defendant’s jacket. Defendant maintained 

that someone else gave her the jacket and the methamphetamine and pipe 

did not belong to her. 

¶3 The state charged defendant with one count of possession of 

dangerous drugs, a class 4 felony, one count of possession of marijuana, a 

class 6 felony, and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, class 6 

felonies. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged. The trial 

court suspended the imposition of sentencing and placed defendant on 

probation for one year. The court ordered her to pay $500.00 in attorneys’ 

fees and $65.00 in probation fees.1 Defendant timely appealed. We have 

 

1 At sentencing, the trial court had a presentence investigation report 

from the probation department indicating that defendant earned $300 per 

month doing landscaping, cutting wood, and doing odd jobs. When the 

court asked defendant if she had any corrections or additions to make to 

the report, she indicated that, with regard to her employment, she would 

be starting to cut wood for a local ranch because “the wood season is upon 

us.” There is nothing in the record, however, indicating how much more 
STATE v. JAIME

Decision of the Court

3

jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1) (2016), 13-4031 (2010), and -4033(A) (2010).

DISCUSSION

¶4 Defendant raises one issue on appeal: whether the trial court 

committed fundamental error by requiring her to pay $500.00 in attorneys’ 

fees and $65.00 per month in probation fees without making findings as to 

her ability to pay.2 Because defendant did not object to the order imposing 

fees, we review for fundamental error. See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 

Ariz. 349, 352, ¶ 7, 185 P.3d 135, 138 (App. 2008). Fundamental error is 

“error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the 

defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that 

the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial.” State v. 

Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005) (citations 

omitted). Under this standard of review, a defendant must show 1) the 

existence of fundamental error, and 2) the error caused the defendant 

prejudice. Id. at ¶ 20.

¶5 Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 11-584(C) provides that 

the court may require an indigent defendant who is represented by the 

public defender’s office to repay the county “a reasonable amount” towards 

the cost of the defendant’s legal services. Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 6.7(d) provides, in relevant part:

If in determining that a person is indigent . . . 

the court finds that such person has financial 

resources which enable him or her to offset in 

part the costs of the legal services to be 

provided, the court shall order him or her to pay 

to the appointed attorney or the county . . . such 

amount as it finds he or she is able to pay 

without incurring substantial hardship to 

himself or herself or to his or her family.

 

defendant would earn per month during wood-cutting season or for how 

long. 

 

2 The court ordered defendant to pay the attorneys’ fees and her 

assessments other than the monthly probation fee at a rate of $100.00 per 

month. 
STATE v. JAIME

Decision of the Court

4

Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-901(A) provides that when granting 

probation to an adult defendant, the court shall assess a monthly probation 

fee of $65.00 per month, unless the court assesses a lesser fee after 

determining the inability of the probationer to pay the fee.

¶6 Defendant acknowledges that in State v. Moreno-Medrano, 

Division Two of this court held that a court’s imposition of fees pursuant to 

section 11-584 without making the findings provided for in Rule 6.7(d) was 

not fundamental error. See 218 Ariz. 349, 353, ¶ 13, 185 P.3d 135, 139 (App. 

2008), review denied. She urges us to instead follow this court’s earlier 

decision in State v. Lopez, 175 Ariz. 79, 82, 853 P.2d 1126, 1129 (App. 1993) 

(court’s failure to make express findings was fundamental error because 

defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was violated). We agree with 

the Moreno-Medrano court that it is not fundamental error for a trial court to 

fail to make a finding that a defendant is able to pay a portion of the cost of 

his or her legal services. A court’s failure to make such findings is not an

error of such magnitude that a defendant’s right to a fair trial is affected. 

Nor is it one of those “rare” circumstances which would deprive a 

defendant of a right essential to his or her defense. See Henderson, 210 Ariz. 

at 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d at 607. “Although findings of fact and conclusions of 

law are certainly helpful on appellate review, they do not go to the 

foundation of the case” and a lack of findings does not deprive a party of a 

fair hearing. Trantor v. Fredrikson, 179 Ariz. 299, 300-01, 878 P.2d 657, 658-

59 (1994). We decline defendant’s suggestion that we follow Lopez, a case 

decided before our supreme court clarified Arizona’s fundamental error 

standard in Henderson. See Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. at 353, ¶ 13, 185 P.3d 

at 139 (“After Henderson, we conclude this part of Lopez is no longer correct 

and find that the imposition of the fees without the finding was not 

fundamental error.”).

¶7 Further, we cannot agree with defendant’s conclusion that the 

trial court “failed to conduct any inquiry” concerning her financial 

resources or her ability to pay fees totaling $165 per month and that she was 

prejudiced by the lack of express factual findings. The court had before it 

defendant’s presentence report indicating that she was working part-time, 

and she informed the court at sentencing that she would soon be working 

even more at a local ranch doing seasonal work. On this record, the court 

could have reasonably concluded that defendant could pay her probation 

fees and $500 in attorneys’ fees without substantial hardship.

¶8 Defendant argues that the imposition of fees could subject her 

to incarceration if she fails to pay them. As the state points out, defendant 

can only become incarcerated if she willfully chooses not to pay the fees 
STATE v. JAIME

Decision of the Court

5

and was able to do so. Nor could she be held in contempt if she was unable 

to pay the fees. Nothing in this decision precludes defendant from arguing 

that if she fails to pay the fees, she was unable to pay them. 

CONCLUSION

¶9 Because defendant did not object to the trial court’s order 

imposing fees without explicit factual findings and because the imposition 

of fees was not fundamental error, we affirm the decision of the trial court.