State v. McCartney, 493 P.3d 905

Background

Stacey McCartney was convicted of possession of methamphetamine (class 4 felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia; the superior court suspended sentence and placed her on two years’ supervised probation.
As probation conditions the court imposed multiple monetary obligations: monthly probation-service fees, a time-payment fee, a drug-offense fine plus surcharge totaling $1,830, probation assessment, criminal-penalty assessments, and victim-rights enforcement assessments.
McCartney completed probation while her appeal of the convictions remained pending; at discharge she still owed $3,144 in unpaid obligations.
The superior court entered a criminal restitution order (effective Oct. 22, 2020) converting the unpaid balances to restitution and directing collection with statutory interest (4% per A.R.S. § 13-805(E)).
McCartney appealed the restitution order, arguing Rule 31.7(a)(2) stays fines pending appeal and that entering a restitution order imposing interest on fines before appeal conclusion conflicts with the rule and violates separation of powers.
The Court of Appeals vacated the restitution order as to the drug fine and surcharge (and accrued interest) and remanded for entry of that portion after the appellate mandate; the remainder of the restitution order (non-fine obligations and their interest) was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	McCartney's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether A.R.S. § 13-805(C)(1) conflicts with Arizona Rule of Crim. P. 31.7(a)(2) and thus violates separation of powers	§ 13-805(C)(1) permits entry of a criminal restitution order (with interest) on fines while an appeal is pending, conflicting with Rule 31.7(a)(2) (which stays fines pending appeal)	The statute authorizes entry of restitution at probation completion and does not irreconcilably conflict with the rule; statute is constitutional as construed	The provisions can be harmonized: Rule 31.7(a)(2) requires that entry of a restitution order for fines be stayed until appeal concludes; no separation-of-powers violation when so construed
Whether the restitution order’s conversion of unpaid non-fine monetary obligations (probation fees, penalty assessments, victim-rights assessments) must be stayed pending appeal	These other monetary obligations should be treated as "fines," so the stay should apply to them too	The rule’s stay language applies to fines only; many assessments/fees are not "fines" and may be converted and accrue interest	The court affirmed conversion and interest for non-fine obligations; it declined to treat the monthly probation-service fee and the other assessments as fines for Rule 31.7 purposes
Whether the court may delay accrual of statutory interest on unpaid obligations until appeal conclusion	McCartney sought to prevent interest accrual while appeal pending	The State argued the court may not delay accrual of interest; interest accrues as statutory law provides	The court confirmed interest may not be delayed pending appeal; but vacatur/remand was limited to the fine and associated interest portion until appeal concluded

Key Cases Cited

Seisinger v. Siebel, 220 Ariz. 85 (2009) (where a procedural rule and a statute irreconcilably conflict, the rule prevails)
State ex rel. Romley v. Ballinger, 209 Ariz. 1 (2004) (Arizona Supreme Court has exclusive authority over procedural court rules)
State ex rel. Napolitano v. Brown, 194 Ariz. 340 (1999) (legislature retains powers not expressly granted to other branches)
State v. Hansen, 215 Ariz. 287 (2007) (statutes and rules should be harmonized where possible in restitution and victims’ rights contexts)
State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389 (2019) (analysis of which probation-related assessments constitute fines)
State v. Lopez, 231 Ariz. 561 (App. 2013) (court may not delay statutory interest accrual pending appeal)