STATE v. VILLAREAL

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NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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. SANTOS VILLAREAL, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 12-0752 FILED 11-12-2013 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2011-123571-004 The Honorable Daniel G. Martin, Judge CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General s Office, Phoenix By Michael T. O Toole Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Kerri L. Chamberlin Counsel for Appellant STATE v. VILLAREAL Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined. J O H N S E N, Chief Judge: ¶1 Santos Villareal was convicted of first-degree murder, criminal trespass in the first degree and three counts of kidnapping. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release for 25 years on the first-degree murder conviction, a concurrent term of 2.25 years on the criminal trespass conviction, a concurrent term of 10.5 years on the first kidnapping conviction, and two consecutive 10.5-year terms on each of the other two kidnapping convictions. At sentencing, the superior court ordered Villareal to submit to DNA testing for law enforcement identification purposes and pay the applicable fee for the cost of that testing. ¶2 On appeal, Villareal does not dispute his convictions nor the terms 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 Villareal was sentenced, the court erred by imposing the collection fee. We therefore modify the judgment of conviction to omit the requirement that Villareal 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. VILLAREAL Decision of the Court ¶3 For the reasons stated, we affirm Villareal s convictions and sentences 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.