Cited by

decision); (holding that the superior court “retains jurisdiction to modify the manner in which court- ordered payments are made until such time that the amount has been paid in full, or defendant’s sentence expires, whichever occurs last[]”) (emphasis altered).

¶25 Moreover, in § 39-121.01(A)(2)’s enumeration of entities that qualify as public bodies, the entities “political subdivision” and “tax-supported district” are separated by the word “or.” And “[t]he word ‘or,’ as it is often used, is ‘[a] disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.’” (emphasis in Rutledge) (quoting Rutledge v. Ariz. Bd.

(noting that designating an undesignated offense implicates due process and requires notice and opportunity to be heard).

-60 (App. 1991) (upholding a restitution award for future medical expenses, reasoning that including only the expenses already incurred by the victim at the time of sentencing would fail to make the victim “whole”)

See State v. Pinto , , 595, , 1141 (App. 1994) ("The word 'or,' as it is often used, is '[a] disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.'

§ 1-211(B) (“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”); (“When statutory language gives rise to different interpretations .

“Or” is “a disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.” n.2, ¶ 15, n.2 (App. 2003) ( ).

(“or” is a disjunctive particle used to express an alternative among two or more things) (citation omitted).

we held this language was “advisory,” not jurisdictional, and a trial court could consider a petition for entry of what was then called a civil judgment if “filed within a reasonable time” after the defendant had completed his or her criminal sentence.

68, 754 P.2d at 295 (finding meritless defendant’s claim that 4 Our interpretation is consonant with the statute’s purpose, which is to ensure that a defendant makes any court-ordered payments “at the earliest possible opportunity,” thus making it unnecessary for “the State and the victims to pursue other, more time-consuming remedies to collect the sums due them.”

Our interpretation should be the one “most harmonious with the statutory scheme and legislative purpose.”

¶12 Similarly, -95, -41 (App. 1994), Division One considered whether A.R.S.

Our interpretation should be the one “most harmonious with the statutory scheme and legislative purpose.”

“The word ‘or,’ as it is often used, is ‘[a] disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.’ ” , (quoting Rutledge v. Ariz. Bd.

we will adopt the interpretation that is most harmonious with the statutory scheme and legislative purpose.”

¶ 16 When statutory language gives rise to differing interpretations, “we will adopt the interpretation that is most harmonious with the statutory scheme and legislative purpose.”