Background
Branden Freeman pleaded guilty in June 2024 to fraudulent schemes and artifices, a Class 2 felony. In his written plea agreement, Freeman admitted to transferring $61,750 from his employer’s account to his personal account. The plea agreement explicitly stated that restitution “will be required” and that Freeman waived his appeal rights, acknowledging he “will have no right to direct appeal.”
At sentencing in September 2024, Freeman was placed on probation with the court retaining jurisdiction over restitution. After several continuances, a restitution hearing was held in October 2025, at which the court found the victim met its burden of proof. The court ordered Freeman to pay $49,839.71 in restitution—substantially less than the $61,750 he admitted to taking. Freeman then filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the restitution order.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed Freeman’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court held that Arizona Revised Statute § 13-4033(B), in place since 1992, categorically bars defendants from directly appealing judgments or sentences entered pursuant to plea agreements in noncapital cases. This prohibition applies even to post-judgment restitution orders.
Freeman argued that because his plea agreement lacked an express restitution cap (unlike the agreement in the prior case of Hoffman v. Chandler), he should be permitted to appeal. The court rejected this argument on three grounds: First, Freeman expressly waived his right to appeal in the signed plea agreement. Second, because Freeman admitted to taking $61,750 and was ordered to pay only $49,839.71, the restitution amount was necessarily contemplated by the plea agreement, and Freeman had notice. Third, the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in E.H. v. Slayton reaffirmed that Hoffman remains good law and that defendants challenging restitution orders issued after guilty pleas must pursue post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, not direct appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Defendants who plead guilty and waive appeal rights cannot directly appeal restitution orders, regardless of whether the plea agreement contains an express restitution cap.
- The sole remedy for challenging a restitution order after a guilty plea is post-conviction relief proceedings under Rule 33.
- A restitution amount substantially less than the admitted loss satisfies the requirement that the amount be contemplated by the plea agreement.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies and reinforces Arizona’s appellate jurisdiction limitations following guilty pleas. By consolidating prior authority from Hoffman and E.H. v. Slayton, the court makes clear that the prohibition on direct appeals applies uniformly to all post-judgment restitution orders, eliminating any argument that the absence of a capped restitution amount creates an exception. This protects victims’ statutory right to full restitution and prevents defendants from using restitution appeals as a backdoor to challenge guilty-plea convictions.
The decision has practical significance for defense practitioners: attorneys must ensure clients understand in plea negotiations that restitution challenges must proceed through Rule 33 post-conviction proceedings, not direct appeal, even when the exact restitution amount cannot be determined at the time of plea.