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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2019-127865-001 

The Honorable Lauren R. Guyton, Judge pro tempore

DISMISSED IN PART; SENTENCE AMENDED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Rebecca Jones 

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix 

By Mikel Steinfeld 

Counsel for Appellant

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

DEREK KUANG, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0511 

FILED 8-15-2023
STATE v. KUANG 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined. 

C A T L E T T, Judge: 

¶1 Derek Kuang (“Kuang”) appeals the superior court’s denial 

of pre-sentence credit for his 2019 conviction for criminal trespass. Kuang 

also argues the superior court violated his due process rights by not 

providing adequate notice of a bond forfeiture hearing. Because the court 

did not include time served solely for Kuang’s 2019 conviction, we amend 

the sentence. We lack jurisdiction, however, to address the due process 

argument because Kuang’s notice of appeal, filed before the bond forfeiture 

hearing occurred, does not identify the bond forfeiture judgment as being 

appealed. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 In 2019, the State charged Kuang with criminal trespass, and 

a bench warrant issued for his arrest when he failed to appear for trial. The 

minute entry indicating the court issued a bench warrant also contained the 

date, time, and virtual login information for the bond forfeiture hearing. 

The address listed for Kuang in that minute entry was the same address 

where Kuang was later apprehended. 

¶3 Kuang was ultimately convicted. A pre-sentence report 

calculated time periods when Kuang was incarcerated for two separate 

2017 convictions as well as prior to sentencing for the 2019 conviction. 

While many dates of pre-sentence incarceration for Kuang’s convictions 

overlapped, the report identified June 20, 2019 through August 22, 2019 and 

July 16, 2021 through August 23, 2021 as dates where Kuang was in custody 

solely for the 2019 conviction. 

¶4 The court sentenced Kuang to 3.75 years, to run consecutively 

with his sentences for the 2017 convictions, with no credit for time served. 

Kuang objected and argued he should receive credit for any time served 

solely for the 2019 conviction. The court rejected the argument, stating 

Kuang would only receive credit for the 2017 convictions and had to serve 

those sentences before receiving any credit against his 2019 sentence. 
STATE v. KUANG 

Decision of the Court 

3 

Kuang filed a notice of appeal designating only “the judgments of guilt and 

sentences . . . on November 4, 2021.” 

¶5 Ten days after doing so, while Kuang was in custody, the 

bond forfeiture hearing occurred in Kuang’s absence. The court found 

there was no reasonable cause for Kuang’s failure to appear for trial and 

forfeited the bond. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Jurisdiction

¶6 While the State did not challenge our jurisdiction, “we have 

an independent duty to determine our jurisdiction over the appeal.” State 

v. Perry, 245 Ariz. 310, 311 ¶ 3 (App. 2018). Kuang filed his notice of appeal

on November 8, 2021, appealing “the judgments of guilt and sentences . . .

on November 4, 2021.” But Kuang’s opening brief addresses two

arguments. Kuang’s first argument is the court improperly calculated

Kuang’s pre-sentence credit. Kuang timely appealed this issue and we have

jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 13-4033(A).

¶7 Kuang’s second argument is that we should set aside the bond 

forfeiture judgment because he did not receive adequate notice of the 

forfeiture hearing, which resulted in his failure to appear and violated his 

due process rights. When determining jurisdiction, we first determine 

whether the bond forfeiture judgment is civil or criminal in nature. See 

Perry, 245 Ariz. at 311 ¶ 3. Although stemming from a criminal case, a bond 

forfeiture judgment is civil in nature. State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds, 222 

Ariz. 193, 195 ¶ 15 (App. 2009); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 7.6(c)(4) (“If the 

court finds that the [forfeiture] violation is not excused . . . the State may 

enforce that order as a civil judgment.”) (emphasis added). 

¶8 Because a bond forfeiture judgment is civil, we apply the 

Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. See Perry, 245 Ariz. at 312 ¶ 7 

(applying the applicable rules after determining whether a proceeding was 

civil or criminal for jurisdictional purposes). Under those rules, a party 

must “[d]esignate the judgment or portion of the judgment” in the notice of 

appeal. Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 8(c)(3). Kuang appealed “the judgments of 

guilt and sentences” on November 8, 2021, before the superior court held 

the bond forfeiture hearing on November 18, 2021 and signed the bond 

judgment on November 23, 2021. Kuang did not amend his notice of appeal 

to designate the bond forfeiture judgment or file a new notice of appeal 

designating the bond forfeiture judgment. 
STATE v. KUANG 

Decision of the Court 

4 

¶9 “As a general rule, our review is limited to matters designated 

in the notice of appeal[.]” Desert Palm Surgical Grp. v. Petta, 236 Ariz. 568, 

576 ¶ 15 (App. 2015). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to address Kuang’s 

arguments challenging the bond forfeiture judgment, and we dismiss that 

portion of his appeal. See Robinson v. Kay, 225 Ariz. 191, 192 ¶ 4 (App. 2010) 

(“[W]e must dismiss an appeal over which we lack jurisdiction[.]”); see also

China Doll Rest., Inc. v. Schweiger, 119 Ariz. 315, 316 (App. 1978) (“Since this 

action was not contained in the notice of appeal, and in fact occurred . . . 

after the notice of appeal was filed, we acquired no jurisdiction to determine 

this issue.”).1 

II. Pre-Sentence Incarceration Credit

¶10 Kuang argues the superior court erred by not including 103 

days of pre-sentence credit for time served in the 2019 conviction. We 

review the superior court’s determination of pre-sentence incarceration 

credit de novo. State v. Yug, 252 Ariz. 203, 204 ¶ 4 (App. 2021). 

¶11 Arizona law requires that “[a]ll time actually spent in custody 

pursuant to an offense until the prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for 

such offense shall be credited against the term of imprisonment[.]” A.R.S. 

§ 13-712(B). The State concedes the superior court erred by not including

103 days of pre-sentence incarceration credit for time served solely for the

2019 conviction. We agree. The pre-sentence time served solely for the 2019

conviction was from June 20, 2019 through August 22, 2019, which is 64

days, and July 16, 2021 through August 23, 2021, which is 39 days, totaling

103 days. Accordingly, we “modify the action of a lower court” by ordering

Kuang’s 2019 sentence to be amended to include 103 days of preincarceration credit. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(c); see also Yug, 252 Ariz. at

206 ¶ 13 (amending a sentence based on pre-sentence incarceration credit).

1 We also note that treating the bond forfeiture judgment as a 

civil judgment is not determinative; we would still lack jurisdiction if we 

instead treated the judgment as criminal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.2(c)(1) (“A 

notice of appeal . . . must identify the order, judgment, or sentence that is 

being appealed.”). 
STATE v. KUANG 

Decision of the Court 

5 

CONCLUSION 

¶12 We amend the superior court’s 3.75 year sentence for Kuang’s 

2019 conviction to include 103 additional days of pre-sentence incarceration 

credit. We dismiss the remainder of Kuang’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.