Court Opinion

ID: 9793517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:48:58.649831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:40.631140
License: Public Domain

LANKFORD, Judge,
Concurring.
¶ 13 I concur in the result. My reasons for reversal differ from those stated in the lead opinion.
¶ 14 In my view, we need only follow our prior decision in In re Alton D., 193 Ariz. 98, 970 P.2d 452 (App.1998). Although Alton D. noted that it involved a plea agreement and an agreed restitution cap, those facts are not indispensable. Instead, I agree with the essential underpinning of that opinion, which consists of two propositions: (1) The court may impose deadlines on restitution claims; and (2) The court may also modify a restitution order as an exercise of its power to change the terms of probation. The latter is, as Alton D. observed, subject to the protections of due process. This approach protects the rights of both victims and defendants and recognizes that the trial court has some discretion.
¶ 15 Accordingly, I believe that we should reverse and remand to the trial court for it to determine whether the terms of probation should be modified to provide for additional restitution.