ALJDEC

99A-124-POS · Peace Officers Standards and Training · 2000-11-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

APPEARANCES: The Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board appeared through Assistant Attorneys General Jeanne M. Galvin, Esq. and Marc H. Harris, Esq.; Mario B. Saraficio appeared through James G. White, Esq., Chief Advocate of Tohono O’odham Advocate Program. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Diane Mihalsky _____________________________________________________________________

The parties stipulated to facts and submitted legal memoranda on the significance of the stipulated facts. Based on the stipulated facts, legal memoranda, and other legal authorities, the undersigned makes the following recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board (“AzPOST”). FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural Background On October 6, 1999, a compliance specialist with AzPOST conducted a new hire audit of the Tohono O’odham Police Department and discovered that Mr. Saraficio had not submitted a fully completed application for peace officer certification.[1] On November 17, 1999, AzPOST received Mr. Saraficio’s completed application for certification as a peace officer, in which he admitted having been convicted of “Conspiracy to Theft.”[2] AzPOST denied Mr. Saraficio certification because he did not meet its qualifications in that, “on April 24, 1995, he was convicted of Conspiracy in the Tohono O’odham Nation Judicial Court, which would be a class 4 felony if he were convicted of the same crime in Arizona jurisdiction.”[3] AzPOST reasoned: Tribal criminal codes in your nation are misdemeanors. However, under POST Rule R13-4-105(A)(6), Minimum qualifications for appointment, if a person is convicted of a crime which is a felony or would be a felony if committed in Arizona, he would not meet the minimum requirements for becoming a peace officer, and; R13-4-109.(A)(7), Denial, revocation, suspension or cancellation of certified peace officer status, if a person commits a crime which is a felony or would be a felony if committed in Arizona, such would be grounds for denial, revocation or cancellation of certified peace officer status.

In comparing the charges filed against Mr. Saraficio under Tribal Codes with Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13-1504(A)(4), it is determined that Mr. Saraficio committed a Class 6 felony by the criminal damage inflicted at a religious property, a Class 4 felony under 13-1506 for the burglary of a non residential property and either a Class 5 or 6 felony (dependent on the value of the items stolen) in the commission of a theft of property from the church.

With those charges being dismissed and Mr. Saraficio pleading guilty to and being convicted of Conspiracy, under Tribal Code, the same offense in ARS 13-1003(C), would carry the same class felony as the most serious crime charged when multiple crimes are committed. This would mean that Mr. Saraficio would have committed and was convicted of, the equivalent of a Class 4 felony under Arizona Revised Statutes.[4]

Mr. Saraficio’s Criminal Conviction On August 13, 1994, Tohono O’odham Nation police officers investigated a burglary report at the Hickiwan Assembly of God Church, finding that a window of the church was broken and, according to a church employee, that merchandise, including two speakers, a bass guitar, a drum set, and two monitors, worth approximately $2,150.00, had been taken.[5] Police officers soon identified six suspects and, based on the suspects’ statements, determined that Mr. Saraficio had neither broken the window nor entered the church, but had stayed outside and helped carry the stolen property into the desert.[6] Mr. Saraficio was twenty years old and was intoxicated when the break-in occurred.[7] Police officers recovered the bass drum and cymbals to the drum set and “most of the other stuff . . . except a speaker and 1 [monitor].”[8] As a result of Mr. Saraficio’s role in the break-in, on December 19, 1994, he was charged in the Judicial Court of the Tohono O’odham Nation, Case No. 940813-10, with burglary, criminal damage to private property, theft, and conspiracy, all in violation of the Tohono O’odham Nation Criminal Code.[9] On March 27, 1995, Mr. Saraficio entered into a plea agreement in which he pled guilty to conspiracy, in violation of the Tohono O’odham Nation Criminal Code. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail, suspended, to 360 days supervised probation, and to pay restitution to the Assembly of God Church in an amount not to exceed $500.00.[10] The amount of restitution was later determined to be $304.00, to be paid $50.00 per pay period.[11] As part of the plea agreement, the charges of burglary, criminal damage to private property, and theft were dismissed.[12] On April 17, 1996, the Tohono O’odham Nation Judiciary determined that Mr. Saraficio had successfully completed probation and entered an order closing his parole/probation record.[13] The record does not show what criminal offenses, if any, the other five suspects were convicted of. According to George P. Traviolia, Esq., the Chief Prosecutor of the Tohono O’odham Nation: [D]ue to Mr. Saraficio’s relatively minor participation in the [August 13, 1994 break-in] incident, as well as the fact that there was no evidence that he entered the building, he is deemed to have been convicted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage to private property. Specifically, Mr. Saraficio was directly responsible for the cost of replacement of the broken window, which, as previously indicated, amounted to $54.00. Under the laws of the Tohono O’odham Nation there is no misdemeanor/felony designation of criminal offenses. However, under the laws of the State of Arizona, conspiracy to commit criminal damage to property under $250.00 is a class 2 misdemeanor. (See: A.R.S. 13-1602(4); A.R.S. 13-1003(D)).

Therefore, Mr. Saraficio, in Case No. CR08-2403-94, has been convicted in the Judicial Court of the Tohono O’odham Nation of conspiracy under the Nation’s Criminal Code, an undesignated offense, equivalent to conspiracy to commit criminal damage pursuant to A.R.S. 13-1602(B)(4) and 13-1003(D), a misdemeanor under the laws of the State of Arizona.[14]

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Arizona Revised Statute (“A.R.S.”) § 41-1822(A)(3) requires AzPOST to “prescribe reasonable minimum qualifications for officers to be appointed to enforce the laws of this state and the political subdivisions of this state and certify officers in compliance with these qualification.” Among the minimum qualifications that AzPOST has prescribed for peace officers in Arizona, set forth at Arizona Administrative Code [“A.A.C.”] R13-4-105(A)(6), is that “[t]he person shall not have been convicted of a felony or any offense that would be a felony if committed in Arizona.” Among the conduct that AzPOST has proscribed, which constitute cause for denial of peace officer certification and is set forth at A.A.C. R13-4- 109(A)(1) and (7), are “[f]ailure to satisfy a minimum qualification for appointment” and “[t]he commission of a felony [or] an offense which would be a felony if committed in this state . . . .” A Comparison of the Criminal Codes of the Tohono O’odham Nation and Analogous Sections of the Criminal Code of The State of Arizona

Section 6.2 of the Criminal Code of the Tohono O’odham Nation sets forth the elements of the crime of Conspiracy as follows: E. A person commits the offense of conspiracy if he or she, with intent, agrees with one or more persons to commit an offense and one of them commits an act in furtherance of the offense, or, he or she agrees to aid in the planning or commission of an offense.

F. It is a defense to a prosecution if the defendant clearly ceases to agree with the conspiracy, takes no further part in the conspiracy, and communicates his desire to abandon the conspiracy to the authorities.

G. A person found guilty of conspiracy shall be sentenced to any of the following:

8. Imprisonment in jail for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days; or

9. A fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500); or

10. Both of the above.[15]

[Emphasis added.] The Arizona Criminal Code, A.R.S. § 13-1003, sets forth the elements of the crime of Conspiracy as follows: F. A person commits conspiracy if, with the intent to promote or aid the commission of an offense, such person agrees with one or more persons that at least one of them or another person will engage in conduct constituting the offense and one of the parties commits an overt act in furtherance of the offense . . . .

G. If a person guilty of conspiracy, as defined in subsection A of this section, knows or has reason to know that a person with whom such person conspires to commit an offense has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same offense, such person is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offense with such other person or persons, whether or not such person knows their identity.

H. A person who conspires to commit a number of offenses is guilty of only one conspiracy if the multiple offenses are the object of the same agreement or relationship and the degree of the conspiracy shall be determined by the most serious offense conspired to.

I. Conspiracy to commit a class 1 felony is punishable by a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release on any basis until the service of twenty-five years, otherwise, conspiracy is an offense of the same class as the most serious offense which is the object or result of the conspiracy.

[Emphasis added.] Section 5.4 of the Criminal Code of the Tohono O’odham Nation sets forth the elements of the crime of Burglary as follows: G. A person commits the offense of burglary if he or she with intent to commit an offense against a person or property does any of the following:

8. enters, breaks into, or remains unlawfully in the building or structure; or

9. enters or breaks into any vault, safe, cash register, coin vending machine, product dispenser, money depository box, telephone coin box, vehicle or other equipment, whether or not coin operated, with intent to take, use or steal any object or anything therein.

J. A person found guilty of burglary shall be sentenced to any of the following:

11. Imprisonment in jail for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days; or

12. A fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500); or

13. Both of the above.

[Emphasis added.] The Arizona Criminal Code, A.R.S. § 13-1506, sets forth the elements of the crime of Burglary in the third degree as follows: H. A person commits burglary in the third degree by entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.

I. Burglary in the third degree is a class 4 felony.

[Emphasis added.] Section 5.7 of the Criminal Code of the Tohono O’odham Nation sets forth the elements of the crime of Theft as follows: I. A person commits the offense of theft if he or she without consent takes, possesses, obtains, uses or conceals, or exercises control over anything of value belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive such person of its use, benefit or value.

J. A person found guilty of theft shall be sentenced to any of the following:

11. Imprisonment in jail for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days; or

12. A fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500); or

13. Both of the above.

[Emphasis added.] The Arizona Criminal Code, A.R.S. § 13-1802, sets forth the elements of the crime of Theft in relevant part as follows: J. A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly:

1. Controls property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of such property; or

2. converts for an unauthorized term or use services or property of another entrusted to the defendant or placed in the defendant’s possession for a limited, authorized term or use; or

3. Obtains property or services of another by means of any material misrepresentation with intent to deprive the other person of such property or services; or

4. Comes into control of lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of another under circumstances providing means of inquiry as to the true owner and appropriates such property to the person’s own or another’s use without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner; or

5. Controls property of another knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen; or

6. Obtains services known to the defendant to be available only for compensation without paying or an agreement to pay such compensation or diverts another’s services to the person’s own and another’s benefit without authority to do so.

. . . .

D. . . . Theft of property or services with a value of two thousand dollars or more but less than three thousand dollars is a class 4 felony. Theft of property or services with a value of one thousand dollars or more but less than two thousand dollars is a class 5 felony. Theft of property or services with a value of . . . one thousand dollars or more but less than two thousand dollars is a class 5 felony. Theft of property or services with a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more but less than one thousand dollars is a class 6 felony. Theft of any property or services valued at less than two hundred fifty dollars is a class 1 misdemeanor . . . .

[Emphasis added.] Section 5.2 of the Criminal Code of the Tohono O’odham Nation sets forth the elements of the crime of Criminal Damage to Private/Personal Property as follows: K. A person commits the offense of criminal damage to private or personal property if he or she does any of the following acts:

12. with intent to impair its function or value; or

13. in negligent or careless manner; or

14. while under the influence of alcohol; defaces, damages, tampers with or abuses the property of another.

O. A person found guilty of criminal damage to private or personal property shall be sentenced to any of the following:

16. Restitution of an amount which will fully compensate for any damage caused; or

17. Imprisonment in jail for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days; or

18. A fine not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300); or

19. Any combination of the above.

[Emphasis added.] The Arizona Criminal Code, A.R.S. § 13-1602, sets forth the elements of the crime of Criminal damage in relevant part as follows: L. A person commits criminal damage by recklessly:

13. Defacing or damaging property of another person; or

14. Tampering with property of another person so as substantially to impair its function or value; or

15. Tampering with the property of a utility. . . . .

B. Criminal damage is punished as follows: . . . .

2. Criminal damage is a class 5 felony if the person recklessly damages property of another in an amount of two thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars.

3. Criminal damage is a class 6 felony if the person recklessly damages property of another in amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars but less than two thousand dollars.

4. In all other cases criminal damage is a class 2 misdemeanor.

[Emphasis added.] The Arizona Criminal Code, A.R.S. § 13-1604, which has no counterpart in the Tohono O’odham Nation’s Criminal Code, sets forth the elements of the crime of Aggravated Criminal Damage in relevant part as follows: M. A person commits aggravated criminal damage by intentionally or recklessly without the express permission of the owner: 14. Defacing, damaging or in any way changing the appearance of any building, structure, personal property or place used for worship or any religious purpose. . . . .

B. Aggravated criminal damage is punishable as follows: . . . .

3. Aggravated criminal damage is a class 5 felony if the person intentionally or recklessly damages property of another in an amount of one thousand five hundred dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars.

4. In all other cases aggravated criminal damage is a class 6 felony.

[Emphasis added.] Other Relevant Arizona Criminal Statutes A.R.S. § 13-105 provides that “‘felony’ means an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections is authorized by any law of this state” and that “‘misdemeanor’ means an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment other than to the custody of the state department of corrections is authorized by any law of this state.”[16] A.R.S. § 13-701(C) provides in relevant part: [T]he term of imprisonment for a felony shall be determined as follows for a first offense: . . . .

3. For a class 4 felony, two and one-half years.

4. For a Class 5 felony, one and one-half years.

5. For a class 6 felony, one year.

A.R.S. § 13-702 provides in relevant part as follows: P. Sentences provided in § 13-701 for a first conviction of a felony . . . may be increased or reduced by the court within the ranges set by this subsection. Such reduction or increase shall be based on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances contained in subsections C and D of this section and shall be within the following ranges:

Minimum Maximum . . . .

3. For a class 4 felony 1.5 years 3 years 4. For a class 5 felony 9 months 2 years 5. For a class 6 felony 6 months 1.5 years . . . .

C. For the purpose of determining the sentence . . ., the court shall consider the following aggravating circumstances: . . . .

3. If the offense involves the taking of or damage to property, the value of the property so taken or damaged.

4. Presence of an accomplice. . . . .

17. Any other factors which the court may deem appropriate to the ends of justice.

R. For the purpose of determining the sentence . . ., the court shall consider the following mitigating circumstances:

19. The age of the defendant.

20. The defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution. . . . .

4. The degree of the defendant’s participation in the crime was minor, although not so minor as to constitute a defense to prosecution.

5. Any other factors which the court may deem appropriate to the ends of justice. . . . .

G. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if a person is convicted of any class 6 felony not involving the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury or the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument and if the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and to the history and character of the defendant, is of the opinion that it would be unduly harsh to sentence the defendant for a felony, the court may enter judgment of conviction for a class 1 misdemeanor and make disposition accordingly or may place the defendant on probation . . . and refrain from designating the offense as a felony or misdemeanor until the probation is terminated. The offense shall be treated as a felony for all purposes until such time as the court may actually enter an order designating the offense as misdemeanor . . . .

[Footnote omitted.] CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Mr. Saraficio bears the burden of proof and must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is qualified to be an Arizona peace officer.[17] “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”[18] A preponderance of the evidence is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”[19] The parties do not dispute the factual circumstances of Mr. Saraficio’s criminal conviction but do dispute their legal significance. The parties agree that the main issue is whether Mr. Saraficio’s acts on August 13, 1994, which led to the March 27, 1995 plea agreement, would have constituted a felony had those acts been committed in Arizona rather than in the Tohono O’odham Nation. The March 27, 1995 plea is Mr. Saraficio’s first and only criminal conviction. The record does not establish the monetary value of the items taken from the Hickiwan Assembly of God Church on August 13, 1994, the monetary value of the items that were recovered, or the total damages caused by the break- in. The record also does not establish whether any of Mr. Saraficio’s co- conspirators were convicted as a result of the break-in and, if so, the crimes they were convicted of. A defendant who pleads guilty in an Arizona court to a designated felony having statutorily prescribed monetary parameters cannot later be ordered to pay restitution in an amount in excess of those parameters, unless the plea shows that “he voluntarily and intelligently agree[d] to pay a higher amount.”[20] Nothing in the record shows Mr. Saraficio would have made the plea agreement in the Judicial Court of the Tohono O’odham Nation if he had known that the amount he agreed to pay as restitution would be used to classify the offense as a felony. Therefore, the amount of restitution that Mr. Saraficio agreed to or actually paid as part of the plea agreement to an undesignated offense under Criminal Code of the Judicial Court of Tohono O’odham cannot be used to designate the offense to which he might have plead to if he had been charged under the laws of the State of Arizona. The maximum penalty for Conspiracy under the Tohono O’odham Nation Criminal Code, 180 days’ imprisonment, is less than the presumptive term of 1 year or the minimum term of 6 months for a Class 6 felony under the State of Arizona Criminal Code. Conspiracy under the Tohono O’odham Nation Criminal Code, therefore, is a less serious offense than a class 6 felony under the laws of the State of Arizona. The Arizona Supreme Court has interpreted the words “punishable as a felony,” which are used in state constitutional provisions regulating judges[21] and in criminal recidivist statutes,[22] to “refer to the maximum punishment that might be imposed for the conduct involved and not to the usual routine of prosecutorial discretion on how or whether to charge at all.”[23] To find that an offense would have been “punishable as a felony” in Arizona, “a court must be sure that the fact finder in the prior case actually found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed every element that would be required to prove the Arizona offense.”[24] The AzPOST regulations at issue here refer to a person who has been convicted of an offense that “would be a felony,” not that would be “punishable as a felony,” if committed in Arizona. Because the language of a regulation is the most reliable indicia of its meaning,[25] AzPOST’s regulations require a finding that an applicant would have been, not merely that he could have been, convicted of a felony if he had been charged under the Criminal Code of the State of Arizona. A.R.S. § 13-1003(D) provides that a person who is convicted of conspiracy is convicted of “the same class as the most serious offense which is the object or result of the conspiracy.” Although the Tohono O’odham Nation Criminal Code section on the offense of Conspiracy does not mention the object of the conspiracy or make the seriousness of the offense dependent on the circumstances of the conspiracy, the parties agree that the actions of the six suspects resulted in damage to a church, which in Arizona constitutes aggravated criminal damage, a class 6 felony in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1604(1). Assuming that, under the facts of this case, Mr. Saraficio’s plea to conspiracy under the Criminal Code of the Tohono O’odham Nation is the equivalent of a plea to aggravated criminal damage under the Criminal Code of the State of Arizona, if an Arizona court had accepted the plea, it would have had discretion under A.R.S. § 13-702(G) to convict Mr. Saraficio of a class 1 misdemeanor or an undesignated offense. The record shows that, at the time of the break-in, Mr. Saraficio was young and intoxicated and that his involvement in the break-in was minor, all of which are factors in mitigation under Arizona law. The Chief Advocate of the Tohono O’odham Advocate Program and the Chief Prosecutor of the Tohono O’odham Nation support Mr. Saraficio in making this application. They believe that his conviction would have been for a misdemeanor under the Criminal Code of the State of Arizona. Based on the record, it is reasonable to conclude that, if the Judicial Court of the Tohono O’odham Nation had been required to designate the offense to which Mr. Saraficio pled guilty and if the court had the same discretion that A.R.S. § 13-702(G) affords courts in the State of Arizona, the offense would have been designated a misdemeanor, not a felony.[26] Done this day, November 2, 2000.

______________________________________ Diane Mihalsky Administrative Law Judge Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of November, 2000, to: Peace Officers Standards and Training Board Tom Hammarstrom, Executive Director 2643 East University Phoenix, AZ 85040

By ___________________________

----------------------- [1] See Stipulated Facts at 3.

[2] See Stipulated Facts at 3 and Exhibit A attached thereto. [3] See Notice of Hearing.

[4] See Exhibit 1 to Mr. Saraficio’s Legal Memorandum. Mr. Saraficio’s legal memorandum included additional facts not in the parties’ stipulation, although such facts appear to be consistent with the facts to which the parties stipulated. Because AzPOST did not object to the additional facts, the undersigned will consider them in making her recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to AzPOST. [5] See Incident Report No. 081310, attached to Mr. Saraficio’s Memorandum as Exhibit 3.

[6] See id.

[7] See Exhibit A to Stipulated Facts.

[8] See Incident Report No. 081310, attached to Mr. Saraficio’s Memorandum as Exhibit 3.

[9] See Exhibit C to Stipulated Facts.

[10] See Exhibit D to Stipulated Facts.

[11] See Exhibit E to Stipulated Facts. The basis of the restitution was $250.00 for a stolen guitar and $50.00 for the broken window. See Exhibit to Mr. Saraficio’s Memorandum.

[12] See Exhibit D to Stipulated Facts.

[13] See Mr. Saraficio’s memorandum, Exhibit 2.

[14] Exhibit 4 to Mr. Saraficio’s memorandum (Affidavit). [15] Exhibit B to Stipulated Facts. [16] Subsections (16) and (21). [17] See A.A.C. R2-19-119; see also Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 438, 930 P.2d 508, 515 (App. 1996).

[18] Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

[19] Black’s Law Dictionary at page 1064 (6th ed. 1990).

[20] State v. Lukens, 151 Ariz. 502, 505, 729 P.2d 306, 309 (1986).

[21] See Ariz. Const. Art. 6.1, § 2 (“[P]roviding for disqualification ‘from acting as a judge . . . while there is pending an indictment or information charging [the judge] in the United States with a crime punishable as a felony under Arizona or federal law . . .’”), Art. 6.1, § 3 (The Arizona Supreme Court “‘may suspend a judge from office without salary when, in the United states he . . . is found guilty of a crime punishable as a felony under Arizona or federal law . . . .’”) (quoted in Matter of Marquardt, 161 Ariz. 206, 208, 778 P.2d 241, 243 (1989) (emphasis that had been added by court omitted)).

[22] See A.R.S. § 13-604(I) (“A person who has been convicted in any court outside the jurisdiction of this state of an offense which if committed within this state would be punishable as a felony . . . is subject to the provisions of this section.”) (quoted in State v. Clough, 171 Ariz. 217, 219, 829 P.2d 1263, 1265 (Ct. App. 1992)).

[23] Marquardt, 161 Ariz. at 209, 778 P.2d at 244. [24] Clough, 171 Ariz. at 219-20, 829 P.2d at 1265-66 (citing, inter alia, State v. Ault, 157 Ariz. 516, 521, 759 P.2d 1320, 1325 (1988); State v. Schaaf, 169 Ariz. 323, 333, 819 P.2d 909, 919 (1991)).

[25] See Matter of Maricopa County Juvenile Action, 171 Ariz. 90, 93, 828 P.2d 1231, 1234 (App. 1991); State v. Sweet, 143 Ariz. 266, 269, 693 P.2d 921, 924 (1985).

[26] See Matter of Beren, 178 Ariz. 400, 402, 874 P.2d 320, 322 (1994) (The State Bar Disciplinary Commission should not have treated attorney’s undesignated offenses as felonies after they were designated as misdemeanors); McHenry v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm’n, 5 Neb. App. 95, 99, 555 N.W.2d 350, 353 (Ct. App. 1996) (reversing Nebraska agency’s revocation of liquor license after Iowa court accepted guilty plea and deferred entry of judgment and sentencing pursuant to Iowa statute).

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826