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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GEROME Q. LANG, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0358 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-106599-001

The Honorable Lauren R. Guyton, Judge Pro Tempore

CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED; 

RESTITUTION REDUCED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Edward F. McGee

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-15-2018
STATE v. LANG

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

T H U M M A, Chief Judge:

¶1 After a jury trial, and a showing of his substantial criminal 

history, Gerome Q. Lang was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, the 

longest of which was 10.5 years, for five non-dangerous but repetitive 

offenses: (1) one count of trafficking in stolen property in the second degree, 

a Class 3 felony; (2) three counts of organized retail theft (committed on 

three different dates), Class 4 felonies and (3) one count of fraudulent 

schemes and artifices, a Class 2 felony. Lang was given 468 days of 

presentence incarceration credit and, based on a restitution ledger, ordered 

to pay victim Lowe’s Home Improvement $3,693 in restitution for the 

fraudulent schemes and artifices conviction. This court has jurisdiction over 

Lang’s timely appeal, challenging the restitution award, pursuant to Article 

6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes 

(A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(2018).

¶2 Lang argues the $3,693 restitution award was error, because 

the “full amount of the economic loss” for restitution totaled $2,127.03. See

A.R.S. § 13-603(C)(2018). Recognizing he did not object in superior court, 

Lang argues the restitution imposed was fundamental error resulting in 

prejudice. See State v. James, 231 Ariz. 490, 493 ¶ 11 (2013) (noting that, when 

no timely objection is made, “the review on appeal is for fundamental 

error,” meaning the defendant “bears the burden to establish that (1) error 

exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice.”) 

(citations and internal punctuation omitted).

¶3 The State confesses error, noting that when a defendant 

shows on the appellate record that the restitution ordered exceeds a lawful 

award, the error is fundamental resulting in prejudice and the appellate 

court may reduce the award to a lawful amount. The State also notes that, 

on appeal, Lang detailed the total losses attributable to him at $2,127.03 and 

the State “agrees with Lang’s calculations.” Accordingly, the State “agrees 

that this Court should order that Lang’s restitution be reduced to 

$2,127.03.”
STATE v. LANG

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 This court accepts the State’s confession of error, and reduces 

the restitution award from $3,693 to $2,127.03. In all other respects, Lang’s 

convictions and sentences (including resulting consequences) are affirmed.