text:
    Rosa Maria MORALES, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellee-Cross Appellant, v. Denise ARCHIBALD, in her capacity as the Clerk of the City of Phoenix, Defendant,
    Urban Phoenix Project PAC, a political committee, Real Party in Interest/Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
    Russell Bowers, in his official capacity as the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives; and Karen Fann, in her official capacity as President of the Arizona Senate, Intervenors/Appellees.
    No. CV-19-0065-T/AP
    Supreme Court of Arizona.
    Filed April 25, 2019
    Kory Langhofer, Thomas Basile, Statecraft PLLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Rosa Morales, House Speaker Russell Bowers and Senate President Karen Fann
    Roopali H. Desai, D. Andrew Gaona, Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Urban Phoenix Project PAC
    CHIEF JUSTICE BALES authored the opinion of the Court, in which VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL and JUSTICES TIMMER, BOLICK, GOULD, LOPEZ, and PELANDER (RETIRED) joined.
   CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, opinion of the Court:

¶1 We here explain our March 20, 2019 order affirming the trial court's decision enjoining a recall election of Phoenix City Councilman Michael Nowakowski. Urban Phoenix Project PAC (the "Committee") failed to collect sufficient valid signatures to trigger a recall because its signature sheets were not attached to a time-and-date-marked copy of its recall application, as required by statute.

I.

¶2 Nowakowski represents District 7 of the City of Phoenix. Displeased with his conduct as a councilman, some electors from District 7 sought to initiate a recall election. To that end, the Committee filed an application for a recall petition on August 29, 2018. After gathering signatures over the next several months, the Committee in December submitted a recall petition with 2,361 signatures to the Phoenix City Clerk for verification. The next month, the City Clerk certified that the petition had sufficient signatures to be on the ballot for the March 2019 city election.

¶3 Rosa Maria Morales, an elector of District 7, then filed this action challenging the recall petition in superior court. She raised three objections: (1) the Committee failed to attach the "official text of the recall, which consists of the date-and-time stamped copy of the petition serial number application," to petition sheets in violation of A.R.S. §§ 19-202.01(D) and -203(D); (2) "a copy of the petition form" was not attached to the Committee's petition application, in violation of § 19-202.01(B)-(C) ; and (3) the petition sheets did not include language required by A.R.S. § 19-204(A).

¶4 The Committee moved to dismiss, arguing that Morales lacked a statutory cause of action, as the sole statute authorizing an elector's challenge to recall petitions is A.R.S. § 19-208.04, which only allows challenges to "the number of signatures certified by the county recorder under the provisions of § 19-208.02." (Pursuant to Phoenix City Charter Chapter XVII, § 3, the Phoenix City Clerk takes the place of the county recorder in the signature verification process.) On the merits, the Committee argued that it should be required only to substantially comply with the statutory requirements for recalls; that § 19-201.01's requirement of strict compliance with statutory requirements is unconstitutional; and that it had substantially complied.

¶5 The trial court ruled that § 19-208.04 is the only statute authorizing a private right of action in the recall context. Under that section, a private party may challenge the validity of signatures. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that Morales was statutorily authorized to raise her first objection. Because Morales's other two objections were not based on signature verification, the court held they were not cognizable and dismissed them.

¶6 On the merits of Morales's surviving objection, the trial court determined that the Committee had failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The court found that the Committee failed to attach a "time-and-date-marked copy of the [petition] application" to its petition sheets, and thus the City Clerk should not have included any of the sheets in certifying the number of signatures. § 19-203(D). Accordingly, the court ruled the recall was not eligible to be placed on the ballot.

¶7 Although ultimately unnecessary to its decision, the trial court also rejected the Committee's challenge to the constitutionality of § 19-201.01, and, in the event the court's jurisdictional rulings were not upheld on appeal, ruled alternatively for Morales on her second objection and for the Committee on the third.

¶8 Morales and the Committee appealed to the court of appeals, and we granted the Committee's unopposed motion to transfer. In this Court, Morales argues that the trial court erred by holding that no broad right of action exists to challenge recall petitions and by rejecting Morales's third objection related to the petition language. The Committee argues that the trial court erred in upholding § 19-201.01, in ruling that the petitions did not comply with §§ 19-202.01(D) and -203(D), and in its alternative ruling on Morales's second objection.

II.

¶9 Before reaching the merits, we consider whether Morales is statutorily authorized to raise any of her objections to the recall. Morales contends that § 19-208.04 broadly authorizes recall challenges; the Committee argues that no statute allows her claims.

A.

¶10 Section 19-208.04 allows any elector to challenge the number of signatures certified on a recall petition. Morales argues that this authorization creates a broad private right of action "irrespective of the legal theory undergirding the challenge." She states that it is "well-established in the initiative and referendum context" that petitions can be challenged for reasons beyond the certification of signatures.

¶11 Morales neglects two key points. First, her claim that the "plain language" of § 19-208.04 creates a broad private right of action is undermined by the statute's own terms.

Section 19-208.04(B) authorizes a challenge to "the number of signatures certified by the county recorder." In this respect, recalls (title 2 of chapter 19) are like initiatives and referenda (title 1 of chapter 19), for which the same sort of challenge is authorized by A.R.S. § 19-121.03(B). But the provisions for initiatives and referenda are notably different from those for recalls because they also include A.R.S. § 19-122(C), which authorizes any person to "contest the validity of an initiative or referendum" for failure to comply with any statutory requirement. See Kromko v. Superior Court , 168 Ariz. 51, 55-56, 811 P.2d 12, 16-17 (1991) (stating that § 19-122(C)"permits any citizen to explore beyond the county recorder's certification" of signatures). The cases Morales cites in support of her broad right of action, all in the initiative and referendum context, were brought under § 19-122, for which there is no counterpart in the recall context.

¶12 The second flaw in Morales's argument is that it conflates the process for recalls with those for initiatives and referenda. See Ross v. Bennett , 228 Ariz. 174, 178 ¶¶ 19-21, 265 P.3d 356, 360 (2011). We have previously declined to extend the same requirements we place on referendum petitions to recall petitions. See id. We decline to do so here as well.

¶13 The legislature has statutorily created a broad private right of action in the context of initiatives and referenda but has declined to do so for recalls. With that background, we will not construe § 19-208.04(B) as implicitly incorporating § 19-122. See City of Flagstaff v. Mangum , 164 Ariz. 395, 398, 793 P.2d 548, 551 (1990) (stating "[w]here the legislature uses a term within one statute and excludes it from another, the term usually will not be read into the provision from which it was excluded").

B.

¶14 By its terms, § 19-208.04 authorizes a challenge to "the number of signatures certified by the county recorder under the provisions of § 19-208.02." Section 19-208.02(A), in turn, requires "the county recorder [to] determine the number of signatures or affidavits of individuals whose names were transmitted that must be disqualified for any of the reasons set forth in § 19-121.02, subsection A." Under § 19-121.02(A), the county recorder must disqualify signatures for statutorily prescribed reasons, including "the same reasons any signatures or entire petition sheets could have been removed by the secretary of state pursuant to § 19-121.01, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3. § 19-121.02(A)(11)." As the final link in the chain, § 19-121.01(A)(1) and (3) specify requirements for petition sheets and signatures.

¶15 Although Morales is not entitled broadly to challenge the validity of the recall, § 19-208.04 authorizes her to challenge the number of signatures certified. The grounds for such a challenge rest in the statutes, including § 19-121.01(A)(1) or (3), that specify how the number of certified signatures is determined. Thus, the trial court correctly ruled that it had jurisdiction to consider Morales's first objection, which contended that the signature sheets should not have been counted because they had not been attached to "the complete title and text of the measure." § 19-121.01(A)(1)(a).

¶16 Morales's other objections - a failure to attach a petition sheet when initially filing the petition application and to include on petition sheets the precise language prescribed by § 19-204(A) - do not relate to the validity of signatures. Although these procedural steps should be followed by those undertaking a recall petition, § 19-208.04 does not contemplate a private right of action challenging a failure to comply with these requirements. Thus, the trial court correctly ruled that it was not authorized to consider Morales's second and third objections.

III.

¶17 We now consider whether the Committee complied with § 19-121.01(A)(1)(a), which requires that petition sheets be attached to the "complete title and text" of the recall in order for the signatures to be verified.

¶18 The "complete title and text" of a recall measure is defined in § 19-202.01(D), which states "the time-and-date-marked application ... constitutes the official copy of the text of the recall and shall be used in all instances as the text of the recall." Similarly, § 19-203(D) states the "time-and-date-marked copy of the application ... constitutes the full and correct copy of the recall text and is the only valid copy for circulation of signatures. Signatures that are collected with any copy of the recall text that is not a facsimile of the time-and-date-marked copy ... are invalid."

¶19 The Committee argues that neither § 19-202.01(D) nor § 19-203(D) states that a time-and-date-marked copy of the application must be attached to the petition sheets. True, neither statute uses the word "attach." But § 19-203(D) expressly recognizes that signatures, to be valid, must be collected with such a copy, which § 19-202.01(D) specifies "shall be used in all instances as the text of the recall."

¶20 Moreover, the definition of the text of the recall does not operate in isolation. Morales's entire challenge is premised on § 19-208.04 which, at the end of a line of references, incorporates § 19-121.01(A)(1)(a). That statute requires the removal of petition sheets "not attached to a copy of the complete title and text of the measure." Thus, to the extent that § 19-203(D) only implicitly requires the attachment of the time-and-date-marked application, § 19-121.01(A)(1)(a) makes the requirement express.

¶21 Taken together, the statutes require that any petition signature sheet not attached to a copy of the time-and-date-marked application be removed from the verification process. It is not enough, as the Committee argues, for the petition sheets to reproduce the application's statement of why a recall is being sought. The time-and-date-marked copy of the application - unlike the petition sheets - both identifies the applicant (including any organization, certain officers, and contact information) and reflects that the application has in fact been filed. Requiring the attachment of a such a copy also helps ensure that signatures are not obtained before the application is filed, consistent with §§ 19-202.01(A) (requiring the submission of an application before circulating a petition) and -203(D) (providing that signatures are invalid if not collected with a copy of the time-and-date-marked copy of the application).

¶22 Here, none of the Committee's sheets were attached to the complete time-and-date-marked application. Moreover, because the Committee failed to attach a copy of the application to the petition sheets, and it did not otherwise collect the signatures with a "facsimile of the time-and-date-marked copy," § 19-203(D), it completely failed to comply with the statutory requirements. Finally, because the Committee did not substantially comply, we need not determine the constitutionality of § 19-201.01. See Stanwitz v. Reagan , 245 Ariz. 344, 348 ¶ 12, 429 P.3d 1138, 1142 (2018). Nor do we address any of the other issues raised by the parties.

IV.

¶23 Our state constitution guarantees voters the right to recall elected officers for whatever reasons they choose. Ross , 228 Ariz. at 176 ¶ 7, 180 ¶ 33, 265 P.3d at 358, at 362. That right, however, must be exercised pursuant to constitutional and statutory provisions. While we recognize that the Committee and its volunteers undertook substantial efforts to gather signatures, those signatures could not be certified because the petition sheets were not attached to a time-and-date-marked copy of the recall application. We therefore affirm the trial court's decision enjoining the recall election.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: CRUZ, Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    A.R., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, Jessica S., Appellees.
    No. 1 CA-JV 18-0273
    Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.
    FILED April 2, 2019 AS AMENDED April 3, 2019
    Vierling Law Offices, Phoenix, By Thomas A. Vierling, Counsel for Appellant
    Law Office of H. Clark Jones, LLC, Mesa, By H. Clark Jones, Counsel for Appellee Jessica S.
    Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
   CRUZ, Judge:

¶1 The guardian ad litem ("GAL"), on behalf of the minor A.R., requests reversal of the juvenile court's finding that severance of the parental rights of Jessica S. ("Mother") was not in A.R.'s best interests. For the following reasons, we accept special action jurisdiction sua sponte and deny relief. We affirm the juvenile court's findings and the order denying DCS' petition to sever Mother's parental rights.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother is the biological parent of A.U., a child victim of severe physical abuse. Julio Ramirez ("Father") is not A.U.'s biological parent, but he and Mother are the biological parents of two other children, both with initials A.R. (hereinafter "middle child" and "A.R."), born after A.U. As a result of the abuse perpetrated on A.U. while in the care of Mother and Father, Mother's parental rights to A.U. were severed. In that separate case neither parent was conclusively identified as the abuser. Still, the fact that the injuries occurred while A.U. was in the care of Mother or Father, or both, and due to their severity-including complex skull fractures to both sides of his head, brain bleeding consistent with head trauma, healing fractures to his left leg and hand, bruising to his face, bruising to his abdomen and back, and peeling on his feet associated with second-degree burns, most of which occurred over time-the juvenile court found that Mother and Father each either abused A.U. or knew it was occurring. Additionally, the two parents had their parental rights to the middle child terminated when DCS established that there was a sufficient nexus between A.U.'s abuse and the risk of abuse to the middle child. A.R.-Mother and Father's second, and younger, biological child-is the subject of this severance proceeding.

¶3 Four days after A.R.'s birth, DCS filed a dependency petition under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 8-533(B)(2), alleging Mother and Father had willfully abused A.U. and that there was a sufficient nexus between A.U.'s abuse and risk of abuse to the newly-born A.R. DCS further alleged, pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(10), that the prior termination of parental rights to A.U. was an additional ground for termination of Mother's and Father's rights to A.R. Six months later, DCS filed its petition for severance. DCS eventually placed A.R. with the paternal grandmother, Mildred Ruano ("Ruano"), a potential adoptive placement. By the time of the final hearing, A.R. had been in placement with Ruano for eight months.

¶4 After the final hearing, the juvenile court found A.R. was dependent as to Mother, and that abuse pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) was conclusively established as a ground for severance against Mother, but that DCS failed to establish, under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(10), that the underlying cause that prevented Mother from being able to meet A.U.'s needs continued to exist and prevented Mother from meeting the needs of A.R. Lastly, the court ruled that, although Ruano seemed a loving placement for A.R., given the likelihood Ruano would allow frequent unsupervised contacts between Father and A.R., "the preponderance of the evidence [did] not favor termination of Mother's parent-child relationship as a benefit to [A.R.]."

¶5 In the end, the court severed Father's parental rights to A.R., but not Mother's. The GAL timely appealed the ruling denying severance of Mother's rights. It is unclear whether a GAL, alone, has standing to seek appellate review of the juvenile court's order. Further, the ruling is not a final order because Mother's dependency case is still ongoing in the juvenile court. The GAL's argument assumes that the court's order was a final and appealable order. See A.R.S. § 8-235(A) ; Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(A). Even if jurisdiction by appeal is lacking, this court has the "discretion to consider the matter as a special action." State v. Perez , 172 Ariz. 290, 292, 836 P.2d 1000, 1002 (App. 1992) ; see also Danielson v. Evans , 201 Ariz. 401, 411, ¶ 35, 36 P.3d 749, 759 (App. 2001) (sua sponte accepting special action jurisdiction). Accordingly, the court in its discretion will entertain the GAL's challenge, on behalf of the minor, to the June 2018 ruling by accepting special action jurisdiction sua sponte , because clarifying the appropriateness of considering a parent's efforts and progress in the context of the best-interests analysis is an issue of statewide importance. See A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(4) ; Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a).

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

¶6 "We accept the juvenile court's findings of fact if reasonable evidence and inferences support them, and will affirm a severance order unless it is clearly erroneous." Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety , 245 Ariz. 146, 151, ¶ 18, 425 P.3d 1089, 1094 (2018) (citation omitted). It is not proper for this court to weigh the evidence. Id. Resolving conflicting evidence, even "sharply disputed" evidence, is "uniquely the province of the juvenile court." Id. (citation omitted). This court "will affirm unless, as a matter of law, no reasonable fact-finder could have found that the evidence satisfied the applicable burden of proof." Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. , 227 Ariz. 282, 285, ¶ 12, 257 P.3d 1162, 1165 (App. 2011).

II. Best Interests Determination

¶7 The GAL argues the court subordinated A.R.'s interests to Mother's when it found A.R.'s best interests did not support severance. The GAL argues that because DCS had previously established a statutory ground for severance, the court improperly considered Mother's diligent efforts toward reunification, and Mother's fitness to parent. The GAL also argues that the court's concerns over any plan for adoption by Ruano, or the child's adoptability, should not have resulted in declining to find that it was in A.R.'s best interests that Mother's rights be severed. Any concern in that regard, according to the GAL, should have been addressed by considering an alternative placement. Additionally, the GAL argued Mother's continued status as a parent is a detriment to A.R.

¶8 In Alma S. the Arizona Supreme Court interpreted A.R.S. § 8-533(B)"as entailing a two-step inquiry." 245 Ariz. at 149, ¶ 8, 425 P.3d at 1092. The first step requires the juvenile court to find a statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence; and the second, to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether severance is in the child's best interests. Id. Here, the parties do not contest that the first step of the Alma S. inquiry is established. The second step is the best-interests determination. It is the State's burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that severance will benefit the child or that denying severance will harm the child. Id. at 150, ¶ 13, 425 P.3d at 1093. Because the juvenile court is in the best position to weigh evidence and assess witness credibility, we accept the juvenile court's findings of fact if supported by reasonable evidence and inferences and will affirm a severance-or denial of severance-order unless it is clearly erroneous. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. , 196 Ariz. 246, 250, ¶ 20, 995 P.2d 682, 686 (2000).

¶9 In making the best-interests determination regarding A.R., the juvenile court recognized that, generally speaking, evidence to support a statutory ground for severance usually establishes circumstances that are detrimental to the child. And yet, the fact of a proven statutory ground does not create the presumption that severance would be in the best interests of the child. We have held that "where a juvenile court determines that despite the presence of statutory ground it is not in the best interests of the child to terminate, [the court] may deny termination." In re Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-6831 , 155 Ariz. 556, 559, 748 P.2d 785, 788 (App. 1988).

¶10 Next, the juvenile court implicitly found A.R. was adoptable when it acknowledged that the immediate availability of an adoptive placement generally weighs in favor of severance; in so finding, however, the court expressed concerns about the child's safety in the current placement, and whether Ruano would be an appropriate adoptive placement. In this regard, the court highlighted testimony regarding the events surrounding A.R.'s first birthday. The court found Mother credible when she testified that on the child's birthday, Ruano left A.R. alone with Father and an unapproved person-a significant violation of the DCS safety plan. Similarly, the court stated it did not find credible Ruano's accounts of the birthday events. Additionally, Mother testified that Ruano and the case worker were emotionally invested in the case and seemingly more interested in seeing Mother's rights to A.R. severed than in assisting Mother achieve reunification. In that regard, Mother also testified that, on one occasion, during Mother's supervised parenting time at Ruano's home, the case worker and Ruano were in the kitchen whispering and crying together; and that Ruano said, "I just want this all to be over with."

¶11 Likewise, the court did not find credible Ruano's testimony to an ongoing relationship between her son (Father) and Mother. Ruano's testimony in that regard was relevant to whether Mother acknowledged the risk of abuse Father may pose to A.R. if Mother retained her parental rights. Instead, the court found Mother credible when she testified that, although at the time of A.U.'s injuries and severance proceedings she did not believe Father could have caused A.U.'s injuries, some three years later, Mother started believing Father could have intentionally caused A.U.'s injuries. Though equivocal during the previous severance proceedings regarding A.U., Mother maintained this position throughout the proceedings relating to A.R. and the court believed her.

¶12 Based on these credibility determinations by the court, we conclude the court implicitly found that Mother's continued involvement in A.R.'s life for now protected the child from the possibility of being left unattended with Father. We presume, when reasonable evidence exists on the record, that the court made every finding necessary to support its order. See Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. , 207 Ariz. 43, 50, ¶ 17, 83 P.3d 43, 50 (App. 2004). The credibility determinations of the court, along with the evidence on the record, reasonably support a finding that Mother did not currently present a detriment to the child sufficient to require her parental rights be severed. Accordingly, we cannot say the court erred by finding DCS failed to prove severance was in A.R.'s best interests.

¶13 The GAL also argues that the court's consideration of Mother's progress and ability to parent, in any degree, was improper. Specifically, the GAL argues the court did not follow Alma S. and "conflated the fitness inquiry with the best-interests inquiry." We disagree. Alma S. does not require the court, when determining a child's best interests, to ignore all consideration of Mother's efforts toward reunification, the bond between parent and child, or fitness to parent. 245 Ariz. at 151, ¶ 15, 425 P.3d at 1094. "[While] the focus of the best-interests inquiry is on the child, courts should consider a parent's rehabilitation efforts as part of the best-interests analysis." Id. The Arizona Supreme Court has given the juvenile courts clear direction to consider the "totality of the circumstances," while ensuring they are not subordinating the interests of the child to that of the parents. Id. at 150-51, ¶¶ 13, 15, 425 P.3d at 1093-94. As long as A.R.'s interests remained paramount to Mother's, it was within the court's discretion to consider all factors under a totality of the circumstances test, including evidence of Mother's reunification efforts, issues surrounding adoptability, Mother's fitness to parent, and the bond between Mother and A.R. Id. at 151, ¶ 15, 425 P.3d at 1094. That is exactly what the juvenile court did here.

¶14 In fact, the court expressed concern over the risk that Father might harm A.R. if the child remained in the care of Ruano, and that this exposure would not be in A.R.'s best interests "[e]specially where [A.R.] has a Mother who ... has been consistent in her diligent efforts to work toward reunification." Read in conjunction, the court's findings show a child-centric assessment concluding that it would be detrimental to A.R. to lose the benefit of a relationship with Mother who is bonded to the child and is conscientiously and diligently working to reunify with the child.

¶15 The court's finding that severance of Mother's parental rights is not in A.R.'s best interests is further supported by testimony that, under circumstances where A.R. could potentially be left in the care of an abuser (Father), the child has the benefit of a parent who participated in all of her services throughout the case "without fail"; a parent who was making "behavioral changes that are necessary in order to work towards reunification"; and a parent who no longer wanted Father around the child while unsupervised. As such, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court's best-interests finding, Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F. , 239 Ariz. 1, 2, ¶ 2, 365 P.3d 353, 354(2016), and applying our deferential standard of review, we conclude that the court did not err in finding DCS failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that severance of Mother's parental rights at this time is in A.R.'s best interests.

¶16 Finally, the GAL argues the court's ruling is contrary to substantial evidence. However, the record supports the juvenile court's factual findings and conclusions. "We will only reverse the juvenile court's decision if there is no reasonable evidence to support its findings." Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec. , 224 Ariz. 373, 376, ¶ 13, 231 P.3d 377, 380 (App. 2010). Therefore, we decline the GAL's invitation to reweigh the evidence presented before it.

CONCLUSION

¶17 We accept special action jurisdiction sua sponte and deny relief. We affirm the juvenile court's findings and the order denying DCS' petition to sever Mother's parental rights.

      Although Father's parental rights to A.R. were severed, he is not a party to this appeal.


author: PERKINS, Judge:

text:
    STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Victor Ted HERNANDEZ, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 16-0336
    Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.
    FILED April 4, 2019
    Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, By Linley Wilson, Counsel for Appellee
    Rick Poster, Phoenix, Counsel for Appellant
    Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
   PERKINS, Judge:

¶1 Victor Ted Hernandez appeals his convictions and sentences for three counts of participating in a criminal street gang in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 13-2321(A). The State charged Hernandez after law enforcement intercepted two letters he wrote from prison to members of a criminal street gang. The letters' contents support his conviction under § 13-2321(A)(1). Because the letters never reached their intended recipients, however, Hernandez could be convicted only of attempted offenses under § 13-2321(A)(2) and (3). Accordingly, we affirm his conviction and sentence as to the first count, but vacate his other convictions, modify the judgment as to those convictions, and remand for resentencing.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions. State v. Harm , 236 Ariz. 402, 404, ¶ 3 n.2, 340 P.3d 1110, 1112 (App. 2015). Evidence at trial established the following: While Hernandez was incarcerated in the Special Management Unit of the Fourth Avenue Jail, his incoming and outgoing mail was subject to an order that required a corrections officer to scan each piece of mail before it could be sent to the post office or delivered to Hernandez. Hernandez attempted to mail two envelopes labeled "legal mail," one addressed to "Villa" and the other to "Lopez," but a Sheriff's Officer recognized the addressees as recipients of nonlegal mail Hernandez had previously sent. After receiving approval from his supervisor, the officer opened and inspected the envelopes.

¶3 The Villa envelope contained a handwritten letter and a copy of a disciplinary action report detailing an assault on an inmate suspected of cooperating with law enforcement against the Mexican Mafia street gang. The handwritten letter gave instructions to provide Hernandez's contact information to other suspected gang members housed in Fourth Avenue Jail. It was signed "Gucci Boy," one of Hernandez's known aliases.

¶4 The Lopez envelope contained a filing from Hernandez's other legal proceedings interlineated with detailed handwritten instructions to send a message to "Turtle" that the Mexican Mafia controls the drug trade. The letter was signed "Death row Lil Chico," another of Hernandez's known aliases. The writing further gave instructions to collect $5,000-$10,000 in back "taxes" from Turtle, and if Turtle refused to pay, to burn down a particular business, and then if Turtle still refused to pay, to burn down another business at a second location. The letter also contained instructions to set up an outside address for money transfers, as well as detailed plans to commit robberies, setting forth the necessary weapons and other equipment, and advising it would be easier to "take out" the intended victims than to leave them alive.

¶5 Based on the two letters, the State charged Hernandez with three counts of participating in a criminal street gang, each a class 2 felony. During his five-day trial, the State presented testimony from multiple law enforcement officers showing Hernandez's affiliation with the Mexican Mafia, testimony from Officer Verdin that Hernandez had written the letters, and the actual letters themselves. The jury found Hernandez guilty on each count and then found two aggravating factors-Hernandez committed the offenses as consideration for something of pecuniary value and that he committed the offenses with the intent to promote or assist criminal conduct by a criminal street gang. The court sentenced Hernandez to twelve years of imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, and an additional five years to be served consecutively to the twelve-year terms as a gang enhancement.

¶6 After searching the entire record, Hernandez's defense counsel identified no arguable, non-frivolous questions of law. In accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel requested we search the record for fundamental error. Hernandez was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona , but did not do so. In the course of our Anders review, we identified an issue arguably constituting fundamental error and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) (requiring representation when Anders review discloses an arguable issue). We asked the parties to address whether the fact that the mail at issue was intercepted requires modification of the judgment to reflect convictions for attempted participation in a criminal street gang rather than completed offenses. We also heard oral argument on the issue.

DISCUSSION

¶7 Hernandez argues that the interception of the letters before they reached their recipients precludes his convictions for participating in a criminal street gang. Specifically, Hernandez argues the language of § 13-2321(A) requires completed communication between a defendant and the intended recipient of the communication. We agree, and reverse two of Hernandez's convictions but conclude that sufficient evidence showed completed communications as to his conviction under § 13-2321(A)(1).

¶8 We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo . State v. Estrada , 201 Ariz. 247, 250, ¶ 15, 34 P.3d 356, 359 (2001). In doing so, we first look to the statute's plain language, which determines the statute's construction when the language is clear and unequivocal. Glazer v. State , 244 Ariz. 612, 614, ¶ 9, 423 P.3d 993, 995 (2018). As relevant here, § 13-2321(A) states:

A person commits participating in a criminal street gang by any of the following:
1. Intentionally organizing, managing, directing, supervising or financing a criminal street gang with the intent to promote or further the criminal objectives of the criminal street gang.
2. Knowingly inciting or inducing others to engage in violence or intimidation to promote or further the criminal objectives of a criminal street gang.
3. Furnishing advice or direction in the conduct, financing or management of a criminal street gang's affairs with the intent to promote or further the criminal objectives of a criminal street gang.

A.R.S. § 13-2321(A). The jury convicted Hernandez on one count of participating in a criminal street gang under each of these three subsections.

¶9 Each verb in § 13-2321(A)(1) implies an interaction between the person doing the organizing, managing, directing, financing, or supervising, and a criminal street gang. Here, the letters evidence that Hernandez had managed, directed, and supervised other gang members before he sent the letters. One of the letters states, "Yourself, Monche, Demon, Trigger, and Thumper's name have all come up within the familia, that not only are you getting money in state, but out of state as well." Hernandez also noted that "big jay from SS Chula Vista wanted to help out," and that "Myself, along with the other aguilas [gang members] send our regards." Thus, even though the letters did not reach their intended recipients, they contained evidence from which the jurors could conclude that Hernandez organized, managed, directed, or supervised gang activity.

¶10 The evidence was insufficient to establish the two other charges, however. Under § 13-2321(A)(2), "inciting" or "inducing" individuals to engage in violence on behalf of a criminal street gang contemplates, at a minimum, some means of communication between the defendant and intended recipient. This is not to say the State is required to prove a specific result of a defendant's conduct but, at a minimum, the State must show the defendant interacted in some way with the criminal street gang. We note that this Court has previously held that the term "induce" (used in a statute proscribing witness tampering, see A.R.S. § 13-2804 (2011)), "requires proof that a defendant knowingly caused a witness ... to unlawfully withhold testimony, testify falsely, or fail to appear at an official proceeding when summoned." State v. Gray , 227 Ariz. 424, 429, ¶ 18, 258 P.3d 242, 247 (App. 2011). The version of A.R.S. § 13-2804 at issue in that case was later amended to replace "knowingly induces a witness" with "knowingly communicates, directly or indirectly, with a witness...." Ariz. Sess. Laws 2014, Ch. 144, § 2. But we need not decide whether the State must show a defendant actually caused a third party to engage in violence or intimidation when charged with "inducing" or "inciting" under § 13-2321(A)(2). Because Hernandez's letters never reached their intended recipients and therefore could not have caused third parties to engage in violence, or even unsuccessfully encouraged them to do so, there was insufficient evidence to show Hernandez violated § 13-2321(A)(2).

¶11 Finally, with respect to Hernandez's conviction under § 13-2321(A)(3), the State was required, as relevant here, to show Hernandez "[f]urnish[ed] advice or direction" to a criminal street gang. As with subsection (A)(2), a violation of § 13-2321(A)(3) requires the provision of "advice" or "direction" by completed communication. The State cannot prove a violation of the statute when the record clearly establishes the defendant's efforts to furnish advice or instructions were unsuccessful. Thus, the record in this case is insufficient to support Hernandez's conviction for a completed violation of § 13-2321(A)(3).

¶12 When the statute's plain language is clear, we will not resort to other methods of statutory interpretation, "such as the context of the statute, its historical background, its effects and consequences, and the spirit and purpose of the law." Gray , 227 Ariz. at 426, ¶ 5, 258 P.3d at 244. The State argues that the legislative intent underlying § 13-2321 is, first and foremost, to prevent members of criminal street gangs from planning and carrying out crimes before the crimes can be completed. Even assuming there were some ambiguity in the statute that would lead us to look to other methods of statutory interpretation, the State does not explain why a conviction for the attempted crimes under § 13-2321(A)(2) and (3) somehow fails to achieve the purpose of preventing these crimes. Although Hernandez's actions did not constitute a completed violation of those provisions, his conduct resulted in criminal offenses, albeit lesser offenses, in accordance with A.R.S. § 13-1001 (attempt). The legislature certainly could have drafted the statute to criminalize attempted and completed participation in a criminal street gang in the same manner. It did not. The statute, as written, is clear. To convict a defendant of participation in a criminal street gang under § 13-2321(A)(2) or (3) the State must show, at a minimum, that the defendant's efforts to induce or furnish advice to the criminal street gang were known to the group he intended to induce or advise. Proof of intercepted communications amounts only to an attempt.

¶13 In sum, a conviction for participating in a criminal street gang under § 13-2321(A)(2) or (3) that relies on communications sent by the defendant requires proof, at a minimum, that the addressee or target actually received the communications. The intended recipients here did not ever receive Hernandez's letters. Accordingly, two of Hernandez's convictions (under subsections (A)(2) and (A)(3)) must be set aside. Because, however, the jury's verdicts on those counts implicitly found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hernandez attempted to commit the offenses in violation of §§ 13-1001 and -2321(A)(2) and (3), we modify the judgment on the second and third counts to reflect that Hernandez was convicted of the lesser-included offenses of attempted participation in a criminal street gang. See State v. Garcia , 138 Ariz. 211, 214, 217, 673 P.2d 955, 958, 961 (App. 1983) (modifying conviction when evidence was sufficient only to prove lesser-included offense).

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm Hernandez's conviction and sentence under § 13-2321(A)(1), but we vacate Hernandez's convictions and sentences for participating in a criminal street gang under subsections (A)(2) and (A)(3), modify the judgment to reflect his convictions for two counts of attempted participation in a criminal street gang, each a class three felony, and remand the case for resentencing.


author: BROWN, Judge:

text:
    IRONWOOD COMMONS COMMUNITY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Shannon K. RANDALL, Defendant/Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CV 17-0381
    Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.
    FILED April 4, 2019
    Dessaules Law Group, Phoenix, By Douglas C. Wigley, Jonathan A. Dessaules, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
    Maxwell & Morgan PC, Mesa, By B. Austin Baillio, Rebecca L. Easton, Chad M. Gallacher, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
    Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
   BROWN, Judge:

¶1 Shannon K. Randall appeals the trial court's ruling that an affidavit of renewal filed in the superior court of the county in which a transcript of a justice court judgment was docketed, instead of in the superior court of the county in which the judgment was obtained, complied with statutory renewal requirements. She also challenges the court's award of post-judgment attorneys' fees and costs. For the following reasons, we affirm the ruling that the judgment was properly renewed and the award of costs for the subsequent garnishment proceeding. We vacate, however, the award of attorneys' fees and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2011, the Casa Grande Justice Court (Pinal County) entered judgment in favor of Ironwood Commons Community Homeowners Association, Inc. ("Ironwood") and against Randall in the amount of $4,089.05 arising from her delinquent assessments. The judgment included a clause purporting to award attorneys' fees and costs incurred in collecting the judgment. In 2014, Ironwood filed a transcript of judgment in the Maricopa County Superior Court and two days later recorded the judgment, also in Maricopa County.

¶3 To prevent the judgment from lapsing, Ironwood filed an affidavit of judgment renewal in the Maricopa County Superior Court in 2016, stating that the justice court judgment "ha[d] not been recorded or docketed in any other county." Ironwood then filed an application for garnishment, a post-judgment statement of costs, and an application for post-judgment attorneys' fees. The clerk of the court issued a writ of garnishment, and the trial court awarded attorneys' fees ($1,130) and costs ($510.77).

¶4 Randall moved to quash the writ of garnishment, arguing execution on the judgment was prohibited under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 12-1551(B) because the judgment was not properly renewed. Randall also filed a motion to vacate the award of attorneys' fees and costs, asserting the award was not grounded in any statutory or contractual provision and the justice court judgment was invalid. Ironwood opposed both motions and also filed an application for order of continuing lien against Randall's non-exempt earnings, which the court granted.

¶5 During oral argument on the motions, Randall argued the justice court judgment expired because the affidavit of renewal should have been filed in the Pinal County Superior Court to give her proper notice. The trial court rejected the argument and, citing A.R.S. § 33-962(A) and § 12-1612(A), ruled that the "proper court" for filing a renewal affidavit was "the court where the judgment was docketed," which in this case was the Maricopa County Superior Court. The court upheld its previous award of attorneys' fees and costs to Ironwood and this timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

A. Proper Court for Judgment Renewal

¶6 Randall contends the justice court judgment cannot be enforced against her because it was not renewed in accordance with A.R.S. § 12-1612. We review issues requiring statutory interpretation de novo. State ex rel. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz. v. Galloway , 224 Ariz. 325, 327, ¶ 7, 230 P.3d 708, 710 (App. 2010). When interpreting statutes, we will "effectuate the text if it is clear and unambiguous." BSI Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Transp. , 244 Ariz. 17, 19, ¶ 9, 417 P.3d 782, 784 (2018). "In construing a specific provision, we look to the statute as a whole and we may also consider statutes that are in pari materia -of the same subject or general purpose-for guidance and to give effect to all of the provisions involved." Stambaugh v. Killian , 242 Ariz. 508, 509, ¶ 7, 398 P.3d 574, 575 (2017).

¶7 Subject to exceptions not applicable here, a judgment expires unless it is timely renewed, see A.R.S. § 12-1551(B), which may be accomplished by affidavit as provided in A.R.S. § 12-1612(A) :

A judgment for the payment of money that has been entered and docketed in the civil docket or civil order book of the United States district court or superior court, whether originally rendered by it or entered on a transcript of judgment from another court, or recorded with the county recorder, may be renewed by filing an affidavit for renewal with the clerk of the proper court.

¶8 A justice court judgment "may be prepared for recording" by filing a certified transcript of judgment with the "clerk of the superior court." A.R.S. § 33-962(A)(1). From the time of its filing, the transcript of judgment is "deemed the judgment of the superior court, ... in the control of the superior court, and ... carried into execution in the same manner and with like effect as a judgment of the superior court." Id . Pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-246, "real property or any interest therein" cannot be "levied upon or sold by virtue of any [justice court] judgment" until the transcript of judgment is first filed in the "superior court of the county where the judgment was given."

¶9 Relying on § 12-1612(A), Randall argues a judgment may be renewed only if an affidavit of renewal is filed in the superior court of the county where the "judgment was originally obtained." Ironwood counters that because § 12-1612(A) contemplates a justice court judgment may be filed as a transcript with any superior court, the judgment may also be renewed in that superior court, regardless of the originating county. Both parties cite this court's opinion in J.C. Penney v. Lane , 197 Ariz. 113, 3 P.3d 1033 (App. 1999), in support of their positions.

¶10 In J.C. Penney , the Page Justice Court (Coconino County) entered a money judgment in favor of a judgment creditor, who then recorded the judgment with the Coconino County Recorder's Office and later filed it in the Coconino County Superior Court. 197 Ariz. at 114, 118, ¶¶ 2, 24, 3 P.3d at 1034, 1038. The creditor mistakenly filed a renewal affidavit in the Maricopa County Superior Court. Id. at 114, ¶ 3, 3 P.3d at 1034. The error was not detected until after the judgment lapsed, and the judgment creditor asked the Coconino County Superior Court to enter the affidavit in its records and accept it as a timely renewal of the judgment. Id. at 114, ¶ 4, 3 P.3d at 1034. The reviewing judge granted the request, explaining there is only one superior court in Arizona and the erroneous filing in Maricopa County was "merely a venue error." Id.

¶11 On appeal, we noted that the Page Justice Court judgment was "rightly filed" in the Coconino County Superior Court, where it was entered and docketed. Id. at 118, ¶ 24, 3 P.3d at 1038. Construing A.R.S. § 12-1612(A) with related statutes, we explained:

The only conclusion that can be reached from reading these provisions in the renewal of judgment statutes is that the affidavit is to be filed with the clerk of the superior court in the same county in which the judgment was docketed so that it can be maintained with the other records concerning that judgment. It would make no sense for the affidavit to be filed with the clerk of the superior court in a different county who would have no records concerning that judgment.

197 Ariz. at 118, ¶ 27, 3 P.3d at 1038. We therefore held that "if the judgment was a Coconino County Superior Court judgment, the affidavit of renewal of the judgment was not effective unless timely filed in the Coconino County Superior Court rather than in the superior court located in some other county." Id. at 119, ¶ 33, 3 P.3d at 1039.

¶12 We rejected the argument that because the superior courts are deemed a "single court" under our constitution, a renewal affidavit may be filed in the superior court of any county regardless of the county's connection with the case or judgment. Id. at 118-19, ¶ 28, 3 P.3d at 1038-39 (citing Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 13 ("The superior courts provided for in this article shall constitute a single court, composed of all the duly elected or appointed judges in each of the counties of the state.")). We relied on Ward v. Stevens , 86 Ariz. 222, 344 P.2d 491 (1959), which involved a challenge to a superior court discovery order issued by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge in a lawsuit pending in Pinal County Superior Court. Id. at 225-26, 344 P.2d 491. Declaring the order a nullity, our supreme court determined the single-court provision was added to the constitution because voters sought to (1) establish uniform salaries among all superior court judges and (2) clarify the power of a visiting judge, on assignment, to hear a case pending in a different court. Id. at 229-30, 344 P.2d 491. The court declined to construe the single-court provision contrary to these avowed purposes, concluding that allowing a judge from one county to enter orders in a case pending in a different county "would only result in chaos and confusion and unnecessary jurisdictional conflicts among the trial courts of the state." Id. at 230-31, 344 P.2d 491. In J.C. Penney , we similarly reasoned that allowing renewal affidavits to be filed with the clerk of any county of the superior court, regardless of whether that county had any connection with the judgment, would create "uncertainty and confusion." 197 Ariz. at 119, ¶ 28, 3 P.3d at 1039.

¶13 Randall has not cited, nor has our research revealed, any statute requiring Ironwood to file its renewal affidavit in the county where the judgment originated. As the trial court aptly noted, the legislature's decision to include specific language in § 22-246 addressing when a justice court judgment must be filed in the superior court of the same county, but not to include similar language in related statutes, makes Randall's interpretation of the judgment renewal statutory scheme unsupportable. See Comm. for Pres. of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel , 213 Ariz. 247, 249-50, ¶ 8, 141 P.3d 422, 424-25 (App. 2006) ("[W]e assume that when the legislature uses different language within a statutory scheme, it does so with the intent of ascribing different meanings and consequences to that language.").

¶14 Randall argues nonetheless that allowing judgment creditors to renew a judgment in any county in Arizona contradicts J.C. Penney's recognition that one of the purposes of the judgment renewal statutes is "to give notice to the judgment debtor and other interested parties of the status of the judgment." See 197 Ariz. at 119, ¶ 29, 3 P.3d at 1039. We explained that interested parties could monitor a judgment's status "by checking the records of the superior court clerk's office in the county where the judgment was recorded," id. at ¶ 30, and that the judgment creditor gave "no reasonable notice" when it failed to file the affidavit in the superior court of that county, id. at ¶ 31.

¶15 We agree with Randall that providing notice is one of the purposes of the judgment renewal statutes. See, e.g. , In re Smith , 209 Ariz. 343, 345, ¶ 10, 101 P.3d 637, 639 (2004) ("The affidavit of renewal serves to notify interested parties of the existence and continued viability of the judgment."). We cannot agree, however, with Randall's view that any specific notice was required other than what is mandated by the plain language of those statutes. Providing notice to interested parties is fulfilled under the statutory scheme for judgment renewal based on the principle of constructive notice. See Serasio v. Sears , 58 Ariz. 522, 525, 121 P.2d 639, 642 (1942) (explaining that an uncertified copy of an affidavit of renewal could not be recorded with the county recorder because it would not provide constructive notice that the affidavit had been filed with the clerk of the court). Nothing requires actual notice to the judgment debtor, either as part of filing the transcript of judgment, filing the affidavit of renewal, or recording the judgment. See Goodwin v. Hewlett , 147 Ariz. 356, 358, 710 P.2d 466, 468 (App. 1985) (explaining that service on a judgment debtor is not required for judgment renewal). The comment in J.C. Penney that a party should not "be required to check the court records in all the other counties of the state to ensure the judgment has not been renewed" is untethered to any statutory language or secondary evidence of legislative intent. 197 Ariz. at 119, ¶30, 3 P.3d at 1039. Thus, to the extent the J.C. Penney court suggested additional notice beyond constructive notice is required to renew a judgment, we reject that suggestion.

¶16 Unlike the situation in J.C. Penney , Ironwood filed a renewal affidavit in the superior court where the justice court judgment was docketed-Maricopa County Superior Court-and recorded the judgment in Maricopa County. Interested parties therefore received constructive notice of the judgment's status. See Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n , 189 Ariz. 495, 500, 943 P.2d 855, 860 (App. 1997) ("Constructive notice includes both information available through recorded documents and knowledge of facts that impose a duty to inquire."); Villas at Hidden Lakes Condos. Ass'n v. Geupel Constr. Co ., 174 Ariz. 72, 76, 847 P.2d 117, 121 (App. 1992) ("Under Arizona law, a recorded document stating its terms and purpose imparts constructive notice.").

¶17 Finally, Randall argues that A.R.S. § 33-962"merely provides an administrative procedure for creating a judgment lien on real property in a foreign county" and should have no bearing on whether an affidavit of renewal is filed in the "proper court" under § 12-1612(A). No language in this or related statutes prohibited Ironwood from following the procedures in § 33-962(A) to docket the justice court judgment in the Maricopa County Superior Court and from then renewing that judgment, as contemplated by § 12-1612. See A.R.S. § 12-1612(A) (allowing a renewal affidavit, filed in the "proper court," to renew a judgment which "has been entered and docketed" in the "superior court, whether originally rendered by it or entered on a transcript of judgment from another court ") (emphasis added). Moreover, no language in § 33-962 restricts the filing of the transcript of judgment to a superior court in any particular county, unlike prior versions of the statute. Compare A.R.S. § 33-962 (2019) ("The clerk of the superior court, on presentation of a certified transcript of a judgment for more than fifteen dollars, exclusive of costs, given by a justice or municipal court, shall forthwith file the judgment.") with A.R.S. § 33-962 (1992) ("The clerk of the superior court, upon presentation of a certified transcript of a judgment for more than fifteen dollars, exclusive of costs, given by a justice of the peace in the county , shall forthwith file the judgment.") (emphasis added).

¶18 In sum, our reading of the judgment renewal statutes is consistent with the conclusion reached in J.C. Penney and thus confirms Ironwood's position that it was not required to file the renewal affidavit in the superior court of the county where the justice court judgment originated (Pinal County), but only where that judgment was correctly filed and docketed (Maricopa County).

The only arguable support in J.C. Penney for Randall's argument is the reference to A.R.S. § 22-246, but that section does not apply here because Ironwood only sought to garnish Randall's wages, not force the sale of her real property. The trial court did not err in denying Randall's motion to quash the writ of garnishment.

B. Post-Judgment Attorneys' Fees

¶19 In its application for attorneys' fees, Ironwood asserted it was entitled to "pre-garnishment" attorneys' fees based on the justice court judgment, which awarded "all reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred ... in collecting the amounts awarded herein." The court granted Ironwood's request and denied Randall's subsequent motion to vacate, explaining that the underlying judgment allowed fees and costs. Randall argues the court erred because no contractual or statutory basis supported Ironwood's request. She further contends that Ironwood's inclusion of "self-serving language" in the justice court judgment did not create a substantive right to such fees.

¶20 We review the superior court's authority to award attorneys' fees de novo. Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan , 235 Ariz. 204, 205, ¶ 5, 330 P.3d 961, 962 (App. 2014). "Generally, a court may award attorneys' fees only when authorized by statute or by agreement of the parties." Cook v. Grebe , 245 Ariz. 367, 369, ¶ 5, 429 P.3d 1161, 1163 (App. 2018). "A party to a civil action cannot recover its litigation expenses as costs without statutory authorization." Schritter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co ., 201 Ariz. 391, 392, ¶ 6, 36 P.3d 739, 740 (2001).

¶21 To the extent Randall challenges the validity of the clause awarding post-judgment attorneys' fees and costs, she was obligated to timely pursue that challenge in the justice court. See Marquez v. Perez , 14 Ariz. App. 451, 452, 484 P.2d 220 (1971) (holding that when a justice court judgment is filed and docketed in a superior court under A.R.S. § 33-962(A), the superior court has no authority to vacate the judgment; it must be vacated by "the court wherein the judgment was rendered"). Nothing in this record indicates she made a timely objection or filed an appeal. As such, we must presume the fee clause is enforceable and could be relied on by the superior court as proper authority for awarding fees and costs. But we express no opinion whether a similar clause is enforceable in other contexts.

¶22 The justice court judgment, however, cannot override a statute that provides an exclusive avenue for recovering fees in a garnishment proceeding. See Bennett Blum , 235 Ariz. at 208, ¶ 16, 330 P.3d at 965 (reasoning that because "garnishment is a creature of statute, garnishment proceedings are necessarily governed by the terms of those statues") (quoting Patrick v. Associated Drygoods Corp. , 20 Ariz. App. 6, 9, 509 P.2d 1043 (1973) ). In Bennett Blum , this court held that attorneys' fees related to a garnishment for "non-earnings" could be awarded only under A.R.S. § 12-1580(E). See id. at 209, ¶ 18, 330 P.3d at 966. The statute at issue here, A.R.S. § 12-1598.07, provides that in a garnishment for earnings , "[t]he prevailing party may be awarded costs and attorney fees in a reasonable amount determined by the court," but "[a]n award of attorney fees shall not be assessed against nor is it chargeable to the judgment debtor unless the judgment debtor is found to have objected solely for the purpose of delay or to harass the judgment creditor." § 12-1598.07(E). Other than the treatment of costs, § 12-1598.07(E) is substantially similar to § 12-1580(E). The language of both statutes plainly mandates that attorneys' fees may only be awarded against a judgment debtor if the debtor "objected solely for the purpose of delay or to harass the judgment creditor." A.R.S. §§ 12-1508(E), -1598.07(E).

¶23 Because A.R.S. § 12-1598.07(E) is the exclusive means by which attorneys' fees may be granted in a proceeding to garnish earnings, the trial court erred by awarding Ironwood attorneys' fees related to the garnishment proceeding. As shown in its affidavit, Ironwood requested attorneys' fees for tasks related to general collection efforts, such as "pursu[ing] [the] transcript of judgment" and preparing the judgment renewal. But it also requested fees for tasks related to the garnishment proceeding, such as obtaining the debtor's employment information. See

A.R.S. § 12-1598.03(A)(4) (providing that the judgment creditor must file an application to obtain a writ of garnishment stating, inter alia , "[t]hat the garnishee is believed to be an employer of the judgment debtor"). Though Ironwood argues the fees sought did not include any fees for preparation of garnishment documents , if the fees relate to preparing for the garnishment proceeding, they are recoverable only under A.R.S. § 12-1598.07(E).

¶24 The trial court had no authority to modify the justice court judgment; thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees and costs for collection services unrelated to the garnishment proceeding. The court erred, however, in awarding Ironwood attorneys' fees related to the garnishment proceeding. We therefore vacate the superior court's award of attorneys' fees. Because we are unable to discern from this record what portion of the total award is attributable to work related to the garnishment proceeding, and therefore not recoverable, we remand for reconsideration of the proper amount.

C. Attorneys' Fees and Costs on Appeal

¶25 Randall and Ironwood both seek recovery of their attorneys' fees and costs incurred on appeal under A.R.S. § 12-1598.07(E). We cannot say that Randall's appeal was filed for the purpose of causing delay or harassment, and thus we deny Ironwood's fee request, but award taxable costs. See A.R.S. § 12-1598.07(E). Ironwood also seeks attorneys' fees under the declaration and A.R.S. § 12-341.01. But the declaration is not part of the record and § 12-1598.07(E) provides the exclusive statutory authority for awarding fees in a garnishment proceeding. Supra ¶ 22. Because Randall has not prevailed on appeal, we deny her request for fees and costs.

CONCLUSION

¶26 We conclude that Ironwood could properly pursue garnishment of Randall's wages because it timely renewed the justice court judgment in the Maricopa County Superior Court in accordance with statutory requirements. Thus, we affirm (1) the trial court's denial of Randall's motion to quash and (2) the cost award dated March 1, 2017. We vacate the court's award of attorneys' fees and remand for reconsideration of the amounts requested for the purpose of awarding only the fees that were unrelated to the garnishment proceeding.

      For the purpose of achieving administrative efficiency, voters adopted a new Article 6 in 1960. See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 13. As relevant here, no material differences exist between the two versions.