Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state
231 Ariz. 362
| Ariz. | 2013Background
- Hoffman pleaded no contest to DUI under a plea agreement including restitution up to a cap of $53,653.45.
- The city court adjudicated Hoffman's guilt, placed him on probation, and ordered restitution to be determined later but not to exceed the cap.
- About three months later, a contested restitution hearing set restitution at $40,933.45.
- Hoffman appealed the restitution order; the superior court dismissed under 13-4033(B) and Rule 17.1(e), directing Rule 32 post-conviction relief for review.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether 13-4033(B) bars direct appeal of a post- judgment restitution order arising from a plea with a cap, and whether such order is part of the sentence.
- The Court held that 13-4033(B) bars direct appeal of the contested post-judgment restitution order when it is entered pursuant to a plea agreement that contemplated payment of restitution and capped the amount, requiring Rule 32 relief for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the restitution order subject to direct appeal under 13-4033(B)? | Hoffman | State | Yes, 13-4033(B) bars direct appeal; review via Rule 32. |
| Is a post-judgment restitution order entered under a capped plea a part of the sentence? | Hoffman | State | Yes, restitution is part of the sentence for 13-4033(B) purposes. |
| May Hoffman's Rule 32 challenge validly address trial-error grounds in the restitution order? | Hoffman | State | Rule 32 is the proper avenue; direct appeal not allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Regenold, 226 Ariz. 378 (2011) (reviews plea-based consequences; Rule 32.1 applies to review)
- State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456 (1996) (Rule 32.1 is the review path for pleading defendants)
- State v. Holguin, 177 Ariz. 589 (App. 1993) (restitution typically imposed at sentencing; mandatory restitution framework)
- State v. Foy, 176 Ariz. 166 (App. 1993) (restitution order under plea terms; not controlling on 13-4033(B) interpretation)
- State v. Unkefer, 225 Ariz. 430 (App. 2010) (assessed restitution post-judgment; not controlling to override 13-4033(B))
- State v. Ponsart, 224 Ariz. 518 (App. 2010) (challenges to plea-consequence orders; relevance to direct appeal limits)
- State v. Delgarito, 189 Ariz. 58 (App. 1997) (order designating offense post-plea; appellate review limits)
- Fisher v. Kaufman, 201 Ariz. 500 (App. 2001) (acknowledges 13-4033(B) precludes direct appeal of plea-related terms)