Court Opinion

ID: 9795637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:34:15.883878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:41.945129
License: Public Domain

THOMPSON, Judge,
dissenting.
¶27 Arizona Revised Statute § 11-584(B)(3) (2006) provides that a criminal defendant must, when ordered to do so, repay a reasonable amount in reimbursement for the cost of his legal defense, when the services of an attorney have been provided by the county by reason of the defendant’s indigence. Section 11-584(C) dictates that “[i]n determining the amount and method of payment the court shall take into account the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that the payment will impose.” The trial judge in this case clearly did take the appropriate considerations “into account” in ordering Taylor to pay a modest sum in installments upon his release from prison. The statute does not suggest that a felon on his way to prison need not pay anything if he does not, at the time of sentencing, have a job or cash in the bank. Quite clearly, it directs to the contrary.
¶ 28 The majority focuses on Rule 6.7(d), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides a procedure for making the determinations required by A.R.S. § 11-584. Rule 6.7(d) could be read to allow for the possibility, as the majority notes, that a defendant without “financial resources” may escape the statutory directive as to reimbursement of the costs of his defense. For two reasons, I would follow the statute and affirm the trial court’s order.
¶ 29 First, judicial rulemaking authority is “not absolute but subject to limitations based on reasonableness and conformity to constitutional and statutory provisions.” DeCamp v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., 47 Ariz. 517, 521, 57 P.2d 311, 313 (1936) (procedural rule gives way to contrary legislative statutory authority) (emphasis added). Supreme court rules “can only effect procedural matters and may not diminish or augment substantive rights.” State v. Birmingham, 95 Ariz. 310, 316, 390 P.2d 103, 107 (1964). Rule 6.7(d) cannot affect the substantive directive of A.R.S. § 11-584(C) that a defendant repay some portion of the cost of legal services provided for him by the county.
¶30 And, second, I conclude that Rule 6.7(d) and the statute are complementary. The Rule mandates reimbursement by a defendant with “financial resources;” it does not preclude it in the case of a defendant who is impecunious and unemployed at the point in time that he is entering the prison system. Financial “resources” in the ordinary meaning of the term includes “... capabilities of producing wealth, or to supply necessary wants; available means or capabilities of any kind.” “Resources,” 3 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 2921 (3rd Rev.1984) (citing Ming v. Woolfolk, 3 Mont. 386 (1879)). Taylor’s employability was expressly and properly considered by the trial court as a financial resource.
¶ 31 As the majority recognizes, no prior Arizona opinion answers the question propounded in this petition for review. None of the cases cited by the majority holds that an unemployed defendant without cash reserves need not pay some amount in reimbursement for the costs of his legal defense. None of the cases holds that “financial resources” may not include potential employment. As the legislature has mandated such payment *336in some reasonable amount, the trial court’s order is not an abuse of discretion.