STATE v. ACOSTA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) MANUEL RAFAEL ACOSTA, ) ) Appellant. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/10/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt No. 1 CA-CR 13-0105 Department S MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2012-129016-001 The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Colby Mills, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Jeffrey L. Force, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Phoenix J O H N S E N, Chief Judge ¶1 disorderly Manuel Acosta conduct and was one convicted count firearm, all Class 6 felonies. of of three unlawful counts discharge of of a He was sentenced to consecutive terms of incarceration and ordered to submit to DNA testing for law enforcement identification purposes and pay the applicable fee for the cost of that testing. ¶2 the On appeal, Acosta does not dispute his convictions nor terms argues of only incarceration that the the court superior committed court imposed. fundamental error He by ordering him to pay for DNA testing pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-610 (2013). The State confesses error, acknowledging that in State v. Reyes, 232 Ariz. 468, 472, ¶ 14, 307 P.3d 35, 39 (App. 2013), this court held that A.R.S. § 13-610 does not authorize the court to impose a DNA collection fee on a convicted defendant. We agree that pursuant to Reyes, which was issued after Acosta was sentenced, the court erred by imposing the collection fee. We therefore modify the judgment of conviction to omit the requirement that Acosta pay for the cost of DNA testing. ¶3 For the reasons stated, we affirm Acosta s convictions and sentences as modified. ______________/S/_______________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, CHIEF JUDGE CONCURRING: ______________/S/_______________ RANDALL M. HOWE, JUDGE ______________/S/_______________ DONN KESSLER, JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.