# State v. Dawson

> Arizona Supreme Court · May 10, 1990 · 164 Ariz. 278

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627627

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Lawrence DAWSON, Appellant
- **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 10, 1990
- **Citations:** 164 Ariz. 278; 60 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 14; 792 P.2d 741; 1990 Ariz. LEXIS 97
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cameron
- **Judges:** Corcoran, Cameron, Gordon, Feldman, Moeller
- **Cited by:** 132 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627627

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the assessments require a predicate fine, penalty, or forfeiture
- stating that, absent a timely appeal or cross-appeal from the State, an appellate court cannot correct an illegally lenient sentence
- rejecting a claim that, absent an appeal or cross-appeal, the court is “statutorily-conferred with the power to consider any error raised by the state that is not in support of the judgment”
- noting that in the absence of a cross-appeal by the State, appellate courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to correct a sentencing error raised by the State
- noting that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider an illegally lenient sentence when the State has not filed an appeal or cross-appeal

## Opinion text

CAMERON, Justice,
dissenting:
I regret that I must dissent. I believe that although the majority opinion is well reasoned and thoughtful, the result is incorrect. Even though this opinion does not involve a plea agreement, the result of the majority opinion is that a defendant and a prosecuting attorney may agree to an unlawfully lenient sentence that becomes final if the trial judge fails to correct it and if the state fails to appeal.
A.R.S. § 13-4035 reads:
A. Upon appeal from a final judgment of conviction, the supreme court shall review all rulings affecting the judgment, even though a motion for a new trial was not made. If a motion for a new trial was made and denied, the court shall, on appeal from the judgment, review the action of the court below in denying a new trial. Upon appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial or for arrest of judgment the court shall review all orders and rulings made at or before the trial, or which affect the order appealed from.
B. Upon an appeal taken by a defendant from the judgment, the supreme court shall review the entire record. A.R.S. § 13-4036 reads:
The supreme court may reverse, affirm or modify the judgment appealed from, and may grant a new trial or render any judgment or make any order which is consistent with the justice and the rights of the state and the defendant. On an appeal from an order made after judgment, it may set aside, affirm or modify the order or any proceeding subsequent to or dependent upon such order.
I believe an illegal sentence is fundamental error. I would, therefore, hold that these two statutes, A.R.S. §§ 13-4035 and 13-4036, give this Court jurisdiction to correct fundamental error even though not raised by either party. I would set aside the illegal sentence and order the trial court to resentence the defendant.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627627. Public record. Not legal advice.