Background
In 1999, Taylor Mower Davis pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and leaving the scene of a serious-injury accident. He agreed in 2000 to pay $81,021.53 in restitution. After completing his prison term and probation, the superior court entered a criminal restitution order in August 2012 for $73,971.53 in unpaid restitution and a $1,970 probation service fee.
Ten-percent annual interest accrued on the restitution order under A.R.S. § 13-805(E). In 2025, Davis moved to disallow the interest, then totaling $73,803.80, arguing that applying the interest provision violated ex post facto prohibitions because the statute did not expressly provide for interest when he committed the offenses in 1999. The superior court denied the motion, and Davis sought review.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief. Treating Davis’s filing as a petition for post-conviction relief because it challenged a restitution order arising from his plea, the court held that the mandatory interest provision is procedural and remedial, not punitive.
Interest on a criminal restitution order is an enforcement mechanism that advances restitution’s purpose of making crime victims whole, the court held. It therefore does not violate the state or federal Ex Post Facto Clauses. The court also held that the applicable version of A.R.S. § 13-805 was the one in effect when the restitution order was entered in 2012, because the statute permitted entry of the order only after Davis completed his sentence or probation.
Key Takeaways
- Interest accruing on a criminal restitution order under A.R.S. § 13-805(E) is procedural and remedial rather than additional punishment.
- Applying that interest mechanism to a restitution order entered after the defendant’s offense does not create an ex post facto violation.
- For this restitution order, the governing statute was the version effective when the order was entered, not when Davis committed the offenses.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Arizona treats interest on criminal restitution orders as part of collection and enforcement, rather than as a new criminal penalty. Defendants cannot avoid that interest merely because their underlying offenses predated the statute’s express interest language.
This memorandum decision is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).