State v. Panos
239 Ariz. 116
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Panos was convicted in superior court of marijuana possession and possession of drug paraphernalia, after counts were downgraded from felonies to misdemeanors.
- The court sentenced him to two concurrent nine-month terms of unsupervised probation and imposed a monthly probation service fee of $65 under A.R.S. § 13-901(A).
- The probation service fee is paid into the adult probation services fund to support probation services and staff salaries.
- Panos challenged the statute as unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and Arizona Constitution.
- The court evaluated the challenges under equal protection and the Arizona ‘special laws’ provision, applying rational-basis review and elastic-class analysis.
- The appellate court upheld the statute, concluding the fee is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective and not a special law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection challenge viability | Panos argues the fee discriminates against superior-court unsupervised probationers. | Panos contends the classification is arbitrary and irrational. | Statute passes rational-basis equal protection review. |
| Special laws prohibition | Argues the fee creates a special law granting privilege to some probationers. | Classification serves a rational objective and is elastic. | Not a forbidden special law; constitutional. |
| Elasticity and rationale of classification | Classification fails to account for similarly situated probationers across courts. | There is a rational basis; distinctions reflect differences in services and contracts for probation across courts. | Classification is elastic and rationally related to probation services. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallardo v. State, 236 Ariz. 84 (Ariz. 2014) (establishes rational-basis framework for equal-protection challenges)
- Republic Inv. Fund I v. Town of Surprise, 166 Ariz. 143 (Ariz. 1990) (elasticity and classification flexibility guidance)
- State v. Hammonds, 192 Ariz. 528 (App. 1998) (rational-basis review tolerates some inequality)
- State v. Lowery, 230 Ariz. 536 (App. 2012) (equal protection outcomes depend on rational classifications)
- Fisher v. Edgerton, 236 Ariz. 71 (Ariz. 2014) (statutory classifications need not achieve absolute equality)
- State v. Getz, 189 Ariz. 561 (Ariz. 1997) (presumption of constitutionality and interpretation to uphold statutes)
- Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., 173 Ariz. 342 (Ariz. App. 1992) (statutory interpretation and equal protection considerations)
- State v. Ramos, 133 Ariz. 4 (Ariz. 1982) (context for rational basis review)
- Luhrs v. City of Phx., 52 Ariz. 438 (1938) (elasticity concept in statutory classifications)