IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

JOHN ALDEN TURNER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0477

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR20020252

The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Eric Knobloch

Counsel for Appellee

C. Kenneth Ray, II, PC, Prescott

By C. Kenneth Ray, II

Counsel for Appellant

OPINION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the opinion of the Court, in 

which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
STATE v. TURNER

Opinion of the Court

2

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 John Alden Turner appeals the revocation of his probation, 

arguing a statute that allows the court to extend probation when a 

defendant has failed to pay restitution does not allow the court to extend 

conditions of probation unrelated to restitution. Because Turner 

misconstrues the statute and because he had proper notice of the extension,

we affirm the revocation.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Turner pled guilty to attempted fraudulent schemes and 

artifices, a Class 3 felony.1 The superior court suspended his sentence and

placed him on supervised probation for five years. Before Turner's

probation expired, his probation officer filed a petition to extend probation,

alleging Turner had failed to pay $65,988 in restitution. Pursuant to 

Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-902(C) (2016), the court 

found Turner still owed restitution and extended his probation for five 

years.

2 Two years later, Turner's probation officer filed a petition to revoke 

probation, alleging Turner had failed to comply with probation conditions 

unrelated to restitution. After Turner admitted one of the violations, the

court continued him on supervised probation for 54 months.

¶3 About six months later, Turner's probation officer filed 

another petition to revoke, alleging Turner had violated several conditions 

of probation, including his restitution obligation. Following a hearing, the 

court found the State had failed to prove Turner had violated the 

restitution-related condition, but had proven other violations. The court 

then revoked Turner's probation and sentenced him to two years in prison.

¶4 Turner timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12–

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

 

1 On review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the judgment and resolve all inferences against Turner. State v. Fontes, 195 

Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

2 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

a statute's current version.
STATE v. TURNER

Opinion of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

A. Section 13-902(C).

¶5 Turner argues that when the court exercises its power to 

extend probation under A.R.S. § 13-902(C), it may extend only the condition

requiring payment of restitution, not the other conditions of probation. He 

argues that, having extended his probation under § 13-902(C), the court 

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to revoke his probation for a violation of 

a condition unrelated to restitution.

¶6 As Turner contends, once probation has expired, the court 

lacks jurisdiction to revoke probation. State v. Chacon, 221 Ariz. 523, 526, ¶ 

6 (App. 2009). A question about subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised 

at any time. Id. at 525-26, ¶ 5. We review issues of statutory interpretation 

de novo. State v. Barnett, 209 Ariz. 352, 354, ¶ 7 (App. 2004). "The primary 

principle of statutory interpretation is to determine and give effect to 

legislative intent." Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 167 Ariz. 281, 284 (1991). We first 

look to the language of the statute to determine the legislature's intent. 

United Dairymen of Ariz. v. Rawlings, 217 Ariz. 592, 596, ¶ 12 (App. 2008). "If

the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we must give it effect 

without resorting to any rules of statutory construction." State v. Johnson, 

171 Ariz. 39, 41 (App. 1992); see also Janson ex rel. Janson v. Christensen, 167 

Ariz. 470, 471 (1991) ("[T]he best and most reliable index of a statute's 

meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, 

it is determinative of the statute's construction."). If a statute is ambiguous, 

we consider the statute's "context, subject matter, historical background, 

effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose." State v. Ross, 214 Ariz. 

280, 283, ¶ 22 (App. 2007) (quoting Hughes v. Jorgenson, 203 Ariz. 71, 73, ¶ 

11 (2002)).

¶7 Section 13-902(C) states:

When the court has required, as a condition of probation, that 

the defendant make restitution for any economic loss related 

to the defendant's offense and that condition has not been 

satisfied, the court at any time before the termination or 

expiration of probation may extend the period within the 

following limits:

1. For a felony, not more than five years.

2. For a misdemeanor, not more than two years.
STATE v. TURNER

Opinion of the Court

4

By its plain language, § 13-902(C) thus authorizes the court to extend the 

"period" of probation when a defendant has failed to make restitution and 

limits the length of any such extension.

¶8 Turner does not dispute that because he had failed to pay 

restitution, the superior court was authorized to extend the period of his 

probation. Nor does he argue that, by extending his obligation to pay 

restitution by five years, the court exceeded its statutory authority. Instead, 

Turner argues that when a defendant fails to pay restitution, § 13-902(C) 

allows the court to extend the "period" of probation only with respect to the 

restitution condition. Turner contends that if the legislature intended to 

authorize the court to extend the other conditions of probation solely 

because a defendant has failed to pay restitution, "it could have, and would 

have, so stated."

¶9 Contrary to Turner's contention, the statute's language, 

context and purpose make clear that the legislature intended § 13-902(C) to 

allow the court to extend all of the conditions of probation for the 

designated period.

¶10 Chapter 9 of Title 13 generally governs probation for eligible 

defendants. Section 13-901, the first statute within Chapter 9, begins:

If a person who has been convicted of an offense is eligible for 

probation, the court may suspend the imposition or execution 

of sentence and, if so, shall without delay place the person on 

. . . probation . . . on such terms and conditions as the law 

requires and the court deems appropriate[.]

A.R.S. § 13-901(A). Under this provision, the legislature has given the court 

broad power to impose on a defendant "such terms and conditions as the 

law requires and the court deems appropriate[.]" Further, subpart (C) of § 

13-901 provides that after imposing probation, "[t]he court, in its discretion, 

may issue a warrant for the rearrest of the defendant and may modify or 

add to the conditions" of the probation. See State v. Quintana, 195 Ariz. 325, 

328 (App. 1999) ("Upon a finding that Defendant has violated his probation, 

the court may 'modify or add to' the conditions of probation."); Burton v. 

Superior Court, 27 Ariz. App. 797, 800 (1977) (court may "modify or revoke 

the term of probation"). As for the length of the period of probation a court 

may impose, as applicable here, subpart (B) of § 13-901 states that "[t]he 

period of probation shall be determined according to section 13-902[.]"

¶11 Turning to that separate provision, § 13-902 is entitled 

"Periods of probation; monitoring; fees." See Minjares v. State, 223 Ariz. 54, 
STATE v. TURNER

Opinion of the Court

5

62, ¶ 34 (App. 2009) ("We also may consider a title to aid in interpretation.").

Nowhere in § 13-902 did the legislature refer to the power of the court to 

impose or modify any condition of probation; the statute instead pertains 

entirely to the length of time -- the "period" -- of probation the court 

otherwise is authorized to impose. The respective subparts of § 13-902 

define the maximum period of probation a court may impose on a person 

convicted of various crimes or classes of crimes. See, e.g., § 13-902(A), (B), 

(E)-(G). Subpart (C), at issue here, authorizes the court to extend the 

"period" of probation when a probationer has failed to pay restitution.

¶12 We find no support in the language or context of the 

respective statutes for Turner's argument that when the legislature 

authorized the court to extend the period of probation for a defendant's 

failure to pay restitution in § 13-902(C), it impliedly limited the broad 

discretion it granted the court in § 13-901(A) and (C) to determine the 

appropriate conditions of probation. See State v. Sweet, 143 Ariz. 266, 270 

(1985) (under "accepted rule of statutory construction" of in pari materia, 

court may consider other relevant statutes). Instead, by authorizing the 

court to extend the "period" of probation, the legislature intended in § 13-

902(C) to permit the court to extend the duration of all of the conditions of 

a defendant's probation, not only the condition requiring restitution.

B. Alleged Due-Process Violation.

¶13 Relying on State v. Korzuch, 186 Ariz. 190 (1996), Turner next 

argues the superior court unconstitutionally revoked his probation because 

he had no notice that when his probation was extended, all the original 

conditions remained in place, including those unrelated to restitution. 

Because Turner raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we review for 

fundamental error. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶¶ 19-20 

(2005). To warrant reversal, Turner must show fundamental error occurred 

and caused him prejudice. Id. at 567, ¶ 20.

¶14 Due process requires notice to a defendant before his 

probation period is extended. Korzuch, 186 Ariz. at 193. Turner contends 

that the order extending his probation did not give him notice that the 

extension applied to the non-restitution conditions. The order extending 

Turner's probation stated:

It is ordered, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-902(C), that the 

defendant's probation term is extended for five years, to 

expire October 10, 2014. The defendant has received notice, 

been advised, and waives his right to an attorney, right to a 
STATE v. TURNER

Opinion of the Court

6

hearing, and is in agreement with the extension of the 

probation term. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the 

outstanding balance of $65,988.00 be paid in monthly 

installments of $1,000.00 commencing October 1, 2009, until 

paid in full.

¶15 The language of the order does not support Turner's 

interpretation. The order first states that Turner's "probation term is 

extended for five years." Depending on the context, a probation "term" 

might mean either a condition of probation (i.e., a "term of probation") or 

the period (duration) of probation. Here, however, the words "extended" 

("probation term is extended for five years") and "extension" ("extension of 

the probation term") make clear that the court meant "term" to refer to a 

period of time, i.e., the duration of probation, rather than any condition of 

probation. See Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 1958 

(2001) (defining "term" as "the time or period through which something 

lasts" and "a period of time to which limits have been set"; "terms" means

"conditions or stipulations limiting what is proposed to be granted or 

done").3

¶16 Finally, Turner's actions following the extension demonstrate

he understood that all the conditions of his probation had been extended. 

As noted above, two years after the court extended Turner's probation 

pursuant to § 13-902(C), Turner admitted he had failed to comply with a 

condition of his probation requiring him to submit to drug and alcohol 

testing, an admission reflecting that he knew that he remained subject to 

conditions of probation other than the obligation to pay restitution. 

Additionally, following that violation hearing, Turner signed a document 

titled Uniform Conditions of Supervised Probation, which listed all of his 

various probation conditions, a document titled Special Conditions of 

Probation, and two Implementation of Conditions of Probation, all of which 

explained Turner's obligation to comply with specified probation 

conditions other than restitution. Thus, the record reveals that, contrary to 

his current contention, he knew that all the prior conditions of probation 

remained in effect.

 

3 To the extent Turner argues the court did not adequately explain the 

probation extension orally to him during the hearing, he has failed to 

provide a transcript of that hearing to support his argument. See State v. 

Kerr, 142 Ariz. 426, 430 (App. 1984) ("It is the responsibility of defense 

counsel to ensure that any document necessary to defendant's argument is 

in the record on appeal.").
STATE v. TURNER

Opinion of the Court

7

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court's 

judgment revoking Turner's probation and imposing a sentence of 

incarceration.