State v. Marquez, 1 CA-CR 16-0757

Marquez was indicted on fraudulent schemes, forgery, and theft for a June 28, 2013 transaction in which Victim paid $1,500 as a deposit to buy a boat Marquez was storing for Owner.
Victim received a bill of sale (bearing Owner’s signature), took possession of the boat, and paid $1,500; Marquez promised to deliver title but never did and avoided Victim.
Owner testified she did not authorize the sale and only asked Marquez to store the boat; Marquez claimed Owner authorized the sale and he would keep $1,500.
Jury acquitted Marquez on fraudulent schemes and forgery, convicted him of theft (value > $1,000 but < $2,000).
The superior court suspended sentence, placed Marquez on 18 months probation, and ordered $2,462.23 restitution (including $1,500 and $962.23 in boat storage fees).
Marquez appealed, challenging the jury instruction given after a jury question, the inclusion of storage fees in restitution, and a discrepancy between the oral sentence (undesignated class 6) and the written minute entry (class 6 felony).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction after juror question	State: final written instructions and counsel arguments were adequate	Marquez: court gave no guidance; jury may have convicted for theft of the boat rather than the $1,500 money alleged in the indictment	No fundamental error; court properly referred jury to prior instructions; evidence and arguments centered on $1,500
Restitution for boat storage fees	State: storage fees flowed from Marquez’s conduct and are economic loss to make Victim whole	Marquez: storage fees are consequential/attenuated and result from Owner’s reneging, not his theft	Restitution upheld; causal nexus not too attenuated; fees properly included to make Victim whole
Effect of acquittals on restitution	State: acquittals on other counts do not limit restitution analysis	Marquez: acquittals show he didn’t commit acts that caused storage fees	Rejected; acquittals do not constrain court’s fact‑specific restitution determination
Sentencing minute entry discrepancy	State: court’s oral pronouncement controls	Marquez: minute entry labels offense as felony though court orally designated it "undesignated" contingent on probation completion	Corrected minute entry to reflect class 6 undesignated offense as orally pronounced

State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (establishes fundamental‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116 (trial court may refuse or refer jury back to prior adequate instructions)
State v. Ruiz, 236 Ariz. 317 (discusses judge response to jury requests for further instruction)
State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571 (speculation about jury confusion insufficient to show prejudice when written instructions are adequate)
State v. Lewis, 222 Ariz. 321 (standard of review and burden of proof for restitution)
State v. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27 (limits restitution to direct economic losses causally connected to the offense)
In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236 (trial court has broad discretion to set restitution to make victim whole)
State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180 (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting minute entry when record clarifies intent)
State v. Karr, 221 Ariz. 319 (viewing evidence in light favorable to sustaining the verdict)