State v. Dustin (2019)

State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389, 392, ¶¶ 8, 10 (App. 2019).

The penalty assessment is not a “stand-alone obligation” because it requires “some other fine, penalty or forfeiture be imposed as a predicate, similar to the requirements of the time payment fee.” State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389, 392, ¶ 12 (App. 2019) (citing A.R.S. § 12-116.04(A)); see also Dustin, 247 Ariz. at 392, ¶ 12 (“The same is true with the $2 victim rights enforcement assessment under A.R.S. § 12-116.09, which also requires a predicate fine, penalty or forfeiture.”…

Relying on State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389 (App. 2019), in which we held in part that a probation assessment is a fine, see id. at 391-92, ¶¶ 7-11 , McCartney argues we should treat the other monetary assessments as fines and vacate the remainder of the court’s criminal restitution order.

State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389, 391, ¶ 12 (App. 2019) (holding that the assessments require a predicate fine, penalty, or forfeiture).

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.

P. 26.16(a) (“The judgment of conviction and sentencing on the judgment are complete and valid at the time the court orally pronounces them in open court.”); see also State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389, 391-392, ¶¶ 8, 10 (App. 2019) (a probation assessment constitutes a sentence).

See State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389 , 390 ¶ 3 (App. 2019).