STATE v. CHAMBERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DENNIS CHAMBERS, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0230 FILED 11-14-2013 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2012-138878-001 The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General s Office, Phoenix By Michael T. O Toole Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender s Office, Phoenix By Christopher V. Johns Counsel for Appellant STATE v. CHAMBERS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. J O H N S E N, Chief Judge: ¶1 Dennis Chambers was convicted of third-degree burglary with two prior felony convictions. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and was ordered to submit to DNA testing for law enforcement identification purposes and pay the applicable fee for the cost of that testing. ¶2 On appeal, Chambers does not dispute his convictions nor the term of incarceration the superior court imposed. He argues only that the court erred by ordering him to pay for DNA testing pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13 610 (2013). 1 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 Chambers was sentenced, the court erred by imposing the collection fee. We therefore modify the judgment of conviction to omit the requirement that Chambers pay for the cost of DNA testing. Absent material revision after the alleged offense, we cite a statute s current version. 1 2 STATE v. CHAMBERS Decision of the Court ¶3 For the reasons stated, we affirm Chambers s conviction and sentence as modified. :mjt 3
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.
