State v. Leal, 455 P.3d 327

In December 2017 Carlos Moreno Leal shot and killed a man in a bar; a jury convicted him of first-degree murder and he was sentenced to natural life.
The presentence report requested $5,500 in funeral expenses paid by the Quechan Indian Tribe to Yuma Mortuary & Crematory and recommended restitution to the Tribe.
At sentencing the court ordered Leal to pay $5,500 restitution to the Tribe; Leal did not object below and appealed only the restitution order.
Leal argued on appeal the Tribe was not a "victim" under A.R.S. § 13-603(C) (and Chapter 40 definitions) and that the Tribe's payment was a routine government function barred from restitution.
The court reviewed unpreserved claims for fundamental error, analyzed statutory bases for restitution (§ 13-603 and § 13-804), and applied Arizona restitution precedent.
The court affirmed: restitution could be ordered to the Tribe under § 13-804 and the funeral expenses satisfied the restitution test and were not routine governmental costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution may be ordered to the Tribe (victim status)	Leal: Tribe is not a "victim" under § 13-603(C)/§ 13-4401(19) and thus cannot receive restitution	State: Court may order restitution under § 13-804 to any "person"/entity (including a tribe) and precedent allows restitution to payors/third parties	Court: Restitution may be awarded under § 13-804 to the Tribe; no fundamental error
Whether funeral expenses were routine government expenditures (too attenuated)	Leal: Burial costs are a routine tribal/governmental function (citing § 36-831(E)), so not recoverable	State: Funeral costs are economic loss directly caused by the murder and recoverable; entity that paid stands in victim's shoes	Court: Three-prong restitution test satisfied; expenses not routine/attenuated and are recoverable
Standard of review for unpreserved objection	Leal: The restitution award was fundamentally erroneous because recipient was improper	State: No error—statutory authority and precedent permit the award	Court: Reviewed for fundamental error and found none; affirmed restitution

State v. King, 157 Ariz. 508 (Ariz. 1988) (restitution may be ordered under § 13-603 or § 13-804)
State v. Madrid, 207 Ariz. 296 (App. 2004) (three-prong test for recoverable restitution: economic loss, but-for causation, direct causation)
State v. Linares, 241 Ariz. 416 (App. 2017) (restution not available for routine governmental functions or losses too attenuated)
State v. Blanton, 173 Ariz. 517 (App. 1992) (funeral expenses recoverable; third party payor may collect restitution)
State v. Merrill, 136 Ariz. 300 (App. 1983) (broad construction of "victim" in restitution cases)
State v. Proctor, 196 Ariz. 557 (App. 1998) (§ 13-804 contemplates a broader class of "persons"/entities eligible for restitution)