Court Opinion

ID: 9919531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 18:03:27.136561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:52.749041
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                                        v.

                        THOMAS BURRESS, Appellee.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0253
                              FILED 01-18-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County
                        No. S0900CR202101484
             The Honorable Jon H. Saline, Judge, Pro Tempore

                      VACATED AND REMANDED

                                   COUNSEL

Thomas Burress, Winslow
Appellee

Navajo County Attorney’s Office, Holbrook
By Myles A. Braccio
Counsel for Appellant
                           STATE v. BURRESS
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1            The State of Arizona (“State”) appeals the superior court’s
grant of Thomas Burress’s request to leave the country while on probation.
For the following reasons, we vacate the court’s grant and remand.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            In January 2022, Burress entered a plea agreement to three
counts of unlawful sexual conduct. The superior court accepted the
agreement and imposed a sentence of standard probation with sex offender
conditions for 15 years beginning in June 2022. The terms of probation
prohibited Burress from leaving Navajo County and included restrictions
on his contact with minors and those who have minor children.

¶3            On June 5, 2023, Burress filed two motions to modify
probation, requesting permission to leave the country. In one motion, he
requested “Emergency Permission” to leave the country on June 20 to
propose to his girlfriend. He claimed the probation department did not tell
him he needed to file a motion until June 2 despite him asking about the
trip in February. In the other motion, Burress did not refer to a specific
travel date but said the purpose of the trip was to propose to his girlfriend
and “get [his] life back on track.” Burress did not serve the State with his
motions.

¶4            On June 9, four days after Burress filed the motions, the
probation department objected, stating it cannot adequately supervise
Burress or enforce probation terms while he is abroad. The same day, the
court entered a final order granting Burress’s request.

¶5           On June 12, the State appealed and moved to stay the order
pending its appeal. On June 14, the court held a hearing on the State’s
motion to stay the order. The victim, the State, the probation department,

                                     2
                           STATE v. BURRESS
                           Decision of the Court

and Burress attended the hearing and had an opportunity to speak. The
court stayed the order to prevent the appeal from becoming moot.1

¶6          This court has jurisdiction over the State’s timely appeal
under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and
-4032(4).

                               DISCUSSION

¶7            The State argues the superior court abused its discretion by
granting Burress’s request to leave the country and violated the State’s due
process rights. Without legal or record citations, Burress asserts
international travel will support his rehabilitation and personal growth, but
he does not respond to the State’s arguments.

¶8              We review modifications of probation for abuse of discretion.
State v. Dean, 226 Ariz. 47, 50 ¶ 7 (App. 2010). “The court . . . may modify
. . . probation in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure at any time
before the expiration or termination of the period of probation.” A.R.S. § 13-
901(C); see also State v. Ray, 209 Ariz. 429, 431 ¶ 5 (App. 2004). But before
modifying probation, the court must “comply with case law and statutes,
due process, and statutory limitations” and give “notice to the State, the
probationer, and the probation department.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27.3(b)(1).
After receiving notice of the motion, a nonmoving party has ten days to
respond. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 1.9(b).

¶9             Because Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 1.9(b)
entitles the State to notice and ten days to respond to a motion for
modification, the superior court erred by granting Burress’s motion four
days after it was filed and before the State responded. Thus, we vacate the
order and remand for the court to comply with the rules by notifying the
State, the victim, and the probation office and allowing ten days for the
parties to respond.

¶10          The State also raises constitutional due process arguments
and contends the court must consider certain standards in its decision to
modify probation. However, because we resolve the issue based on statutes
and rules, we need not address the constitutional issues. See Goodman v.

1     Although Burress’s request to leave the country on June 20, 2023 is
moot, his general request to leave the country at no specific date remains
relevant. Thus, we address his motion to leave the country at some future
date.

                                      3
                           STATE v. BURRESS
                           Decision of the Court

Samaritan Health Sys., 195 Ariz. 502, 505 ¶ 11 (App. 1999) (“It is sound
judicial policy to avoid deciding a case on constitutional grounds if there
are nonconstitutional grounds dispositive of the case.”). And because we
vacate the modification and remand for further proceedings that will
reasonably allow participation by the State, the victim, and the probation
department, we decline to prematurely reach the merits of Burress’s request
to leave the country. See Freeport McMoRan Corp. v. Langley Eden Farms, LLC,
228 Ariz. 474, 478 ¶ 15 (App. 2011) (“[W]e do not issue advisory opinions
or decide unnecessary issues.”).

                              CONCLUSION

¶11          We vacate the superior court’s order modifying Burress’s
probation terms and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
decision.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: TM

                                        4