State v. Forguson

Decision Date13 May 2022
Docket Number2 CA-CR 2022-0049-PR
PartiesThe State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Adam Lee Forguson, Petitioner.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Gila County No. S0400CR201700445 The Honorable Bryan B. Chambers, Judge

Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Petitioner

Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

STARING, VICE CHIEF JUDGE

¶1 Adam Forguson seeks review of the trial court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 33, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Forguson has not shown such abuse here.

¶2 Forguson pled guilty to manslaughter and aggravated assault and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms totaling 13.5 years. The trial court ordered him to pay $6, 210.46 in restitution to the parents of the manslaughter victim. Forguson sought post-conviction relief, arguing a $30, 000 insurance payment to the parents should offset the restitution owed because that payment included compensation for economic loss. His argument focused on a release, signed by one of the parents, which purported to release Forguson from "all claims, demands, actions and causes of action[] and liability" related to the victim's death and stated "this settlement is in full compromise" of potential claims against Forguson. Forguson reasoned that, because the release included "both non economic and economic claims," the restitution ordered by the court "would therefore be part of the $30, 000 payment," and he was thus entitled to credit against restitution "through the insurance payment."

¶3 At a hearing on Forguson's petition, the victim's parents addressed the trial court, stating the restitution was for "cremation, our lost wages, our time in travel for the motel room, [and] out of pocket expenses." Forguson agreed and declined to present any additional evidence-the only evidence admitted at the hearing was a copy of the estate accounting. The court denied relief [1] noting that the accounting showed the estate's only assets were funds from two insurance settlements, including the settlement with Forguson's insurer, and that nothing in the accounting showed the parents had been compensated for the expenses forming the restitution award. Thus, the court concluded, Forguson was not entitled to any offset. It further determined the settlement did not preclude the parents "from collecting on the restitution order." This petition for review followed.

¶4 Forguson is required to pay restitution to the victim's family for their economic loss. See A.R.S. § 13-603(C). Forguson, however, maintains he is entitled to credit the insurance payment made to the victim's estate against the restitution award because the insurance payment includes compensation for economic loss. He further contends the settlement precludes the victim's parents from receiving restitution. As he did below, he relies primarily on State v. Iniguez, 169 Ariz. 533 (App. 1991). There, like here, the defendant's victims settled with the defendant's insurer "in exchange for release of all claims." Id. at 534-35. The state argued the trial court could not consider "compensation other than restitution payments" and, thus, could not offset restitution by any amount paid by the insurer. Id. at 537. Conversely, the defendant argued "that the only evidence of the victim's full economic loss is the settlement agreement" and therefore "the victim was fully compensated." Id.

¶5 We rejected both arguments, instead concluding the trial court must "coordinate criminal restitution and civil damage recoveries" and may not "order restitution exceeding the victim's actual economic losses after crediting payments received by the victim outside the criminal proceeding." Id. We cautioned however, that because settlement agreements may compensate non-economic loss, a court may not assume a settlement paid the full economic loss and thus precludes restitution. Id. at 538. We remanded the case for the trial court to "reconsider the propriety of the restitution order and to specify the basis for its determination," noting the court may "consider evidence which may enable it to determine the extent to which a portion of the insurance payment should be attributed to compensation for non-economic loss, and thus should not be credited against the amount of restitution." Id. at 538-39. ¶6 Forguson first contends the trial court "erred when it failed to determine the apportionment of non-economic...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT