Cited by

“Under Rule 24.3, the trial court itself must act within sixty days to correct an unlawful sentence, or the sentence will stand.” ¶ 11 (App. 2008).

P. 24.3(a); ¶ 8 (App. 2008); ¶ 9 (App. 2014)

Voidable orders or judgments, in contrast, are “binding and enforceable,” enjoy “all [of] the ordinary attributes of a valid [order or] judgment until [they are] reversed or vacated,” ¶ 13 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 16 (App. 1998)), and may “only be modified on [direct] appeal or by [a] proper and timely post-judgment motion,” Chaparro, 248 Ariz. at 143 ¶ 22 (quoting Bryant, 219 Ariz. at 517–18 9 ¶¶ 13, 15).

¶ 4 (App. 2008); ¶ 8 (App. 2003).

¶¶ 10–11 (App. 2008) (After the sixty days has elapsed, the trial court is divested of its jurisdiction to modify the sentence.); (“As we have held in the past the superior court has no jurisdiction to modify its original judgment.”).

¶ 8 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 4 (App. 2008)).

¶ 14 (App. 2008) ("[A]n order is voidable, rather than void, when the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction but errs in issuing an order.").

–18, ¶¶ 13–14 (App. 2008).

Here, because the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, the “order is voidable, rather than void.” See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 14; ¶ 14 (App. 2008) (citation omitted).

¶ 4 (App. 2008) (“Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

“Subject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.’” ¶ 29 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 14 (App. 2008).

¶¶ 14–17 (App. 2008) (an illegal sentence is not a lack of subject matter jurisdiction error).

(no fundamental error review in post-conviction relief proceeding); ¶¶ 3 STATE v. HAZZARD Decision of the Court 14-17 (App. 2008) (an illegal sentence is not a lack of subject matter jurisdiction error).

¶ 8 The discretionary registration order in Serrano, as well as the order expunging a DNA 2 , on which Grijalva also relies, were modifications of the “complete and valid” sentences imposed earlier.

¶ 8 (App. 2012) (noting the interpretation of court rules requires de novo review) ( ¶ 4 (App. 2008), ¶ 8 (App. 2001)).

P.3d 1011 (App. 2008), is unavailing.

By contrast, a judgment or order is voidable “when the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction but errs in issuing an order.”

“Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo.”

he original superior court order requiring Espinoza to register as a condition of his probation, as well as the two convictions for registration violations that followed, all fell within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction and therefore were not void ab initio, but voidable orders that could have been modified only “on appeal or by proper and timely post-judgment motion.” State v. Bryant, 219 Ariz. 514, ¶ 15, (“A judgment that is voidable is binding and enforceable .

§§ 11-251.21, 11-1202.I, the County asserts that “the Board is statutorily authorized to establish the terms under which it will transact business, including, but not limited to, providing for the judicial review of specific Board decisions.” ¶13 “Subject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.’” see also State ex rel.

“Subject matter jurisdiction is ‘the power of a court to hear and determine a controversy.’”