State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota, 319 P.3d 242

Cota was convicted after a jury trial of armed robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, and aggravated robbery; he received concurrent prison terms and a restitution order.
During jury deliberations, jurors asked questions about the armed robbery charge and instructions; the court allowed additional closing argument with counsel but not Cota present.
Defense counsel consented to Cota’s absence, and the court informed jurors it would proceed with Cota off the record; the court stated it would handle questions without Cota present.
Cota did not object to his absence; the issue raised on appeal was reviewed for fundamental error and prejudice.
The CRO (criminal restitution order) at sentencing included restitution plus fees, but the court later altered the order to exclude certain items; the court later considered adjustments under § 13-805(B)/(C).
The court held that restitution may be entered via a CRO for unpaid restitution under § 13-805(B) for post-amendment periods; however, it concluded that fees and assessments cannot be included in a CRO at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cota’s absence at closing argument was error	Cota waived presence or invited error through counsel, sustaining affirmance.	Cota’s presence was required; absence violated rights.	No error; absence permissible; no prejudice shown.
Whether the criminal restitution order at sentencing was proper under § 13-805(B)&(C)	CRO for unpaid restitution is permitted by amendments.	CRO improperly included non-restitution fees/assessments.	CRO upheld for unpaid restitution; fees/assessments excluded; interest rules applied.
Whether interest suspension on CRO was proper	Court could suspend interest to aid defendant during incarceration.	Interest must accrue on CROs under § 13-805(E).	Interest suspension not corrected on appeal; interest accrues, but not all issues reversed.

State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390 (App. 2007) (defendant not required to waive presence for trial court’s answer to jury question)
State v. Campbell, 146 Ariz. 415 (App. 1985) (no error when counsel waives defendant’s presence without objection)
State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 (2003) (fundamental-error review requires showing error, fundamental nature, and prejudice)
State v. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309 (App. 2010) (burden to show error and prejudice under fundamental-error review)
State v. Lewandowski, 220 Ariz. 531 (App. 2009) (CROs and restitution limitations; distinguishes fines vs restitution)
State v. Lopez, 231 Ariz. 561 (App. 2013) (CROs at sentencing limited to restitution; time-payment fees not includable)
State v. Unkefer, 225 Ariz. 430 (App. 2010) (application of § 13-805 to restitution and restitution collection goals)
State v. Henry, 224 Ariz. 164 (App. 2010) (procedural nature of § 13-805 amendments and victim restitution goals)
State v. Zaputil, 220 Ariz. 425 (App. 2008) (restitution as non-punitive; CROs are enforcement mechanisms)
State v. O’Connor, 171 Ariz. 19 (App. 1992) (CROs serve to enforce preexisting restitution debts)
State v. Torres, 233 Ariz. 479 (App. 2013) (application of § 13-805 in sentencing contexts)