State v. Andrich, 011019 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CR 18-0600 PRPC
|Docket Nº:||1 CA-CR 18-0600 PRPC|
|Opinion Judge:||JOHNSEN, JUDGE.|
|Party Name:||STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DEVIN ANDRICH, Petitioner.|
|Attorney:||Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Jeffrey R. Duvendack Counsel for Respondent Devin Andrich, Phoenix Petitioner|
|Judge Panel:||Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.|
|Case Date:||January 10, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2014-108114-001 The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Jeffrey R. Duvendack Counsel for Respondent
Devin Andrich, Phoenix Petitioner
Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.
¶1 Devin Andrich petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief of-right ("PCR") filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.
¶2 Andrich pled guilty in 2015 to one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices (Count 1), one count of theft (Count 2) and one count of forgery (Count 3). As part of the plea agreement, he stipulated to a term of 3.5 years' imprisonment on Count 2 and supervised probation on Counts 1 and 3, to commence upon his release from prison. Andrich's plea agreement stated, in boldface capital letters, "Defendant Specifically Agrees to the Restitution in the Attached Addendum of this Plea Agreement," and the addendum listed payments totaling $395, 624.83 to 16 victims. In exchange for Andrich's plea, the State agreed to forgo filing nine additional theft charges against him.
¶3 At the change-of-plea hearing, the superior court deferred acceptance of the plea to allow the prosecutor to verify the restitution amounts set forth in the addendum. At the sentencing hearing held a few months later, the prosecutor provided a revised stipulated addendum, but also notified the court that she anticipated reducing the restitution for victim K.K., adding that defense counsel did not object to "a lesser amount for that victim."
¶4 The superior court then invited defense counsel and Andrich to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP