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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SEANATHON JOICLAIRE SHOLES, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0497 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2019-005381-001

The Honorable Laura M. Reckart, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Diane Leigh Hunt

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Lawrence S. Matthew

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 10-27-2022
STATE v. SHOLES

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Seanathon Joiclaire Sholes appeals from her 

probation grant for assault and for resisting arrest, challenging the 

imposition of $35 in financial consequences on the resisting arrest 

conviction. Because the consequences are not authorized by law, they are

vacated. Sholes’ probation grants are affirmed as modified to remove those 

consequences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 After a bench trial on charges arising out of an August 2018 

incident in Phoenix, Sholes was convicted of two Class 1 misdemeanors: 

Count 1, assault, a domestic violence offense, and Count 4, resisting arrest.

¶3 At sentencing, the court placed Sholes on concurrent 

unsupervised probation grants for 18 months and imposed financial 

consequences. As reflected in the written sentencing order, for Count 1, the 

court imposed a $50 address confidentiality program assessment; a $50 

family offense assessment; a $20 probation assessment; a $20 time payment 

fee; a $13 criminal penalty assessment; and a $2 victim rights enforcement 

assessment to total $155. For Count 4, the written sentencing order shows 

another $20 time payment fee; another $13 criminal penalty assessment;

and another $2 victims’ rights enforcement assessment, totaling $35. 

¶4 This court has jurisdiction over Shole’s timely appeal

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).
STATE v. SHOLES

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶5 “Where there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and 

the written judgment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls.” State 

v. Hanson, 138 Ariz. 296, 304-05 (App. 1983). Both Sholes and the State agree 

that the court did not impose the $35 consequences for Count 4 in open 

court at sentencing and that doing so, for the first time, in the written 

sentence order is improper. Given this error, Sholes asks this court to vacate 

the $35 consequences for Count 4. The State seeks a resentencing, arguing 

the issues Sholes raises “are not presently ripe because the trial court might 

not impose any of them on remand.” 

¶6 Arizona law does not authorize the $35 consequences for 

Count 4. The $20 time payment fee, the $13 criminal penalty assessment and 

the $2 victims’ rights enforcement assessment each require a predicate fine, 

penalty or forfeiture. See A.R.S. § 12-116(A); A.R.S. § 12-116.04(A); A.R.S. §

12-116.09(A). Here, the court imposed no such predicate fine, penalty or 

forfeiture for Count 4. See State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389 (App. 2019).

¶7 A time payment fee is proper only if the “court imposed a 

specific stand-alone penalty, fine or sanction that [the defendant] did not 

pay on the date of sentencing.” Dustin, 237 Ariz. at 390–91 ¶ 5. The time 

payment fee is assessed on the defendant, not on each count, fee, fine or 

assessment. See A.R.S. § 12-116(A). Sholes has already properly been 

assessed a time payment fee for Count 1, meaning the time payment fee 

assessed for Count 4 was not authorized by law. 

¶8 “The [criminal] penalty assessment. . . is not a stand-alone 

obligation—it requires that some other fine, penalty or forfeiture be 

imposed as a predicate, similar to the requirements of the time payment 

fee.” Dustin, 237 Ariz. at 392 ¶ 12; see also A.R.S. § 12-116.04(A). Because 

there was no fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed for Count 4, the criminal 

penalty assessment for Count 4 was not authorized by law. Similarly, the 

victims’ rights enforcement assessment “also requires a predicate fine, 

penalty, or forfeiture.” Dustin, 237 Ariz. at 392 ¶ 12; see also A.R.S. § 12-

116.09(A). Because there was no fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed for 

Count 4, the victims’ rights enforcement assessment for Count 4 was not 

authorized by law.

¶9 Because the court did not impose any predicate fine, penalty 

or forfeiture for Count 4, the $35 consequences are not authorized by law. 

Although requesting a remand, the State has not shown that the 

consequences for Count 4 constitute an illegal sentence and did not cross-
STATE v. SHOLES

Decision of the Court

4

appeal from the sentence. Thus, no remand is needed, and this court 

modifies the sentencing order as to Count 4 so that no financial 

consequences are imposed for that conviction. 

CONCLUSION

¶10 Sholes’ probation grants are affirmed as modified to remove

from the consequences for the Count 4 conviction the $20 time payment fee, 

the $13 criminal penalty assessment and the $2 victims’ rights enforcement 

assessment.