Background
John Leo Davis killed his wife in March 2015, pled guilty to second-degree murder in January 2020, and was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. The couple’s six minor children were adopted by their maternal grandparents, who then sought criminal restitution from Davis. The superior court awarded $1,071,479.61 in total restitution, consisting primarily of estimated future child-raising costs ($982,515) and other victim expenses ($88,965).
While Davis pursued post-conviction relief challenging the restitution award, he obtained a $15,000 civil judgment against a state employee in an unrelated case. The State filed an interpleader action to deposit the $15,000 with the superior court. Davis argued the funds should be held pending the outcome of his PCR appeal, while the grandparents (as restitution lienholders) sought immediate disbursement in partial satisfaction of the restitution orders.
The superior court ordered the $15,000 deposited with the clerk and directed immediate disbursement to restitution lienholders in pro rata shares (later stayed pending this appeal). Davis appealed, arguing the court was required by statute to withhold disbursement while his PCR matter was pending.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the disbursement order. The sole issue was whether Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-804(D) required the trial court to withhold restitution payments pending Davis’s PCR appeal. Section 13-804(D) provides that restitution payments “shall not be stayed if the defendant files a notice of appeal, and the payments may be held by the court pending the outcome of an appeal” (emphasis added).
The court held that Section 13-804(D) merely permits—rather than requires—a court to hold restitution payments pending appeal. The statute uses permissive language (“may be held”), not mandatory language. Davis cited a vacated Court of Appeals decision interpreting “may” as mandatory, but the Arizona Supreme Court in Hansen v. State rejected that interpretation, confirming that the statute only permits withholding, not requires it.
The court noted that although Section 13-804(D) had been applied in direct appeals, no Arizona court had expressly applied it in PCR proceedings. However, the court assumed arguendo that it applied and still found Davis received no relief because the statute does not mandate withholding disbursement. Since the trial court was not required to hold the funds, it committed no error in ordering disbursement to the restitution lienholders.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts have discretion, not an obligation, to hold restitution payments pending appeal under A.R.S. § 13-804(D).
- The permissive language “may be held” in the statute does not create a mandatory withholding requirement.
- Restitution to crime victims and their representatives is not automatically stayed during defendant’s appellate challenges.
- A trial court does not err by disbursing interpleaded funds subject to restitution liens, even when the underlying restitution award is being challenged on appeal or PCR.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that crime victims’ interests in receiving restitution are not subordinated by a defendant’s appellate proceedings. While defendants retain the right to challenge restitution awards, courts are not required to freeze restitution payments during those challenges. This strengthens victims’ practical access to compensation and prevents defendants from using the appeals process to delay or obstruct restitution flow to victims and their representatives.
The ruling also clarifies interpleader procedure in criminal restitution contexts: funds subject to restitution liens can be disbursed to lienholders during pending PCR proceedings without violating statutory requirements. Practitioners representing crime victims should note that restitution liens provide a mechanism to reach a defendant’s assets even when the underlying restitution judgment is being appealed, subject only to the trial court’s discretion to delay disbursement.