State of Arizona v. Albert Junior Lopez, 231 Ariz. 561

Lopez was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a narcotic drug and possession of drug paraphernalia.
The trial court imposed mitigated, concurrent prison terms, the longest being seven years.
The court reduced fines, fees, and assessments to a criminal restitution order (CRO) and ordered no interest would accrue while Lopez was incarcerated.
Lopez appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to reduce penalties to a CRO before sentence expiration and that the CRO must be vacated.
The State conceded the CRO imposition at sentencing was improper because it occurred before expiration of sentence/probation.
The court vacated the CRO but affirmed Lopez’s convictions and sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a CRO be entered before sentence expiration?	Lopez argues the CRO was improperly entered pre-expiration.	Lopez contends the court lacked authority to delay interest accrual; the State concedes improper timing.	CRO vacated; improper pre-expiration imposition.
Is the error harmless if interest is not accruing during incarceration?	Lopez asserts harmlessness cannot be assumed given improper CRO entry.	State argues no prejudice since no interest accrues during term.	Error not harmless; still vacate CRO.

State v. Lewandowski, 220 Ariz. 531 (App. 2009) (CRO entry governs only at sentence/probation expiration; premature accrual is reversible error)
State v. Vermuele, 226 Ariz. 399 (App. 2011) (fundamental error review does not apply when error is not apparent until sentencing)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (harmless error standard; state bears burden to show harmlessness)
Jackson v. Schneider, 207 Ariz. 325 (App. 2004) (when trial court exceeds sentencing authority, the sentence is void as to excess portion)