State v. Alicajic

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

HARRY LEE ALICAJIC, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0206
FILED 03-24-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-128190-001
The Honorable Margaret LaBianca, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Jesse Finn Turner
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.
 STATE v. ALICAJIC
Decision of the Court

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Harry Lee Alicajic ("Alicajic") appeals from a restitution
order. After searching the entire record, Alicajic's counsel identified no
arguable, non-frivolous questions of law. In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense
counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Alicajic
had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did
not do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1

¶2 On July 25, 2024, Alicajic pled guilty to aggravated assault, a
class 3 non-dangerous felony, and arson of an occupied structure, a class 2
non-dangerous felony. The plea stipulated that he would pay restitution
for economic losses to the victim with a maximum fine of $150,000. On
August 27, 2024, Alicajic was sentenced to four years in prison, followed by
four years of probation. The court also ordered Alicajic to "pay restitution
for all economic losses to all victims." Alicajic did not appeal his conviction
or sentence.

¶3 The State later requested $52,874.50 as restitution to the
victim. This amount was based on the difference between the victim's
claimed total losses and the value of his homeowner's insurance policy, plus
an additional $13,405.14 for lost rentals.

¶4 On April 11, 2025, the court held a non-witness restitution
hearing. Alicajic waived his right to be present at the hearing. The parties
submitted evidence and arguments, and the court ordered Alicajic to pay
the requested amount.

¶5 Alicajic timely appealed the restitution order, and we have
jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033.

DISCUSSION

¶6 Our review of the record reveals no fundamental error. See
Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. The record reflects that the court conducted the
restitution proceeding in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal

1 "[W]e view the evidence bearing on a restitution claim in the light
most favorable to sustaining the court's order." See State v. Lewis, 222 Ariz.
321, 324, ¶ 5 (App. 2009).

2
 STATE v. ALICAJIC
Decision of the Court

Procedure. Counsel represented Alicajic at the restitution hearing and
waived his right to be present. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 6.1, 19.2. In addition,
A.R.S. § 13-4033(B) bars a defendant from directly appealing a contested
post-judgment restitution order entered pursuant to a plea agreement that
contemplated payment of restitution up to a capped amount. See Hoffman
v. Chandler ex rel. County of Pima, 231 Ariz. 362, 362–63, ¶ 1 (2013). Thus,
Alicajic is barred from directly appealing the restitution order because the
ordered amount fell within the cap contemplated in the plea agreement. See
id. at 363, ¶ 1 ("Any appellate review must be obtained through post-
conviction relief proceedings.").

CONCLUSION

¶7 We have reviewed the entire record for arguable issues of law
and find none. We affirm the restitution order. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 300–01.

¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Alicajic of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has
no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue
appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). This Court, of its
accord, grants Alicajic 30 days from the date of this decision to file an in
propria persona motion for reconsideration. But see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20(c)
(allowing 15 days to file a motion for reconsideration). Alicajic has 30 days
from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona petition for review
or 15 days after a timely motion for reconsideration is decided. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 31.21(b)(2).

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

3