STATE v. HILL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. BROCK AMELIA HILL, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 21-0548 FILED 8-16-2022 Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015CR202000854 The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Jr., Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson By Karen Moody Counsel for Appellee Jill L. Evans, Attorney at Law, Flagstaff By Jill L. Evans Counsel for Appellant MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. STATE v. HILL Decision of the Court W I L L I A M S, Judge: ¶1 Brock Amelia Hill was convicted of two counts of negligent homicide, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving death or serious physical injury, and two counts of driving under the influence. The superior court sentenced Hill to 40.25 years’ imprisonment and, after a contested restitution hearing, ordered him to pay restitution of $33,799.12. Hill appeals solely from the court’s restitution order. ¶2 Hill’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal. Hill was granted an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). ¶3 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error with respect to the restitution order and find none. The superior court ordered Hill to pay restitution totaling $33,799.12, which included reimbursement for: (1) the cost of two funerals; (2) travel costs for victims’ representatives to attend court; (3) lost wages for a surviving victim; (4) and medical bills. Record evidence supports the court’s order. We, therefore, affirm the restitution order. ¶4 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Hill’s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Hill of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On this court’s motion, Hill has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 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.
