State v. Coppinger
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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) JOHN KEITH COPPINGER, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) 1 CA-CR 09-0590 DEPARTMENT A DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/17/11 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication - Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-118723-001 DT The Honorable John R. Ditsworth, Judge AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section And Diane Leigh Hunt, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Karen M. Noble, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 John Keith Coppinger (defendant) appeals sentences on two counts of forgery, class 4 felonies. from his For the following reasons, we reverse the portion of defendant s sentence imposing probation surcharges. ¶2 After a two-day jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of forgery. presumptive sentences concurrently. each count. ¶3 trial The trial court sentenced him to two of ten years in prison, to probation served The court also imposed a surcharge of $20 for Defendant timely appealed. Defendant raises one issue on appeal: court be imposed surcharge an illegal fees of sentence twenty by dollars whether the ordering for to each pay count. Because defendant failed to raise this issue below, we review for fundamental error. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-69, P.3d ¶¶ concedes in erroneous. 19-26, its 115 answering Because the 601, 607-09 brief that surcharges (2005). the were The surcharges not state were statutorily authorized, we reverse them. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the probation surcharges imposed by the trial court and affirm the judgment 2 and sentence as modified. /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _____________________________________ DONN KESSLER, Presiding Judge /s/ _____________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge 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.
