State v. Davis

── State v. Davis ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JOHN LEO DAVIS, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 24-0457 PRPC FILED 05-20-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2015-114088-001 The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Casey Hutchinson, Jason Easterday Counsel for Respondent Debrigida Law Offices, PLLC, Glendale By Ron M. Debrigida, Jr. Counsel for Petitioner OPINION Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton joined. Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani dissented in part.  STATE v. DAVIS Cattani, J., dissenting in part T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 John Leo Davis seeks review of the superior court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition filed under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 (2026).1 For the reasons that follow, this court grants review and grants relief in part and denies relief in part. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In March 2015, Davis repeatedly stabbed his wife M.D. in their Goodyear home, where they lived with their six minor children. M.D. died from the stab wounds. Davis was charged with first degree murder, child abuse and related offenses. ¶3 Maternal grandparents paid for M.D.’s funeral and burial expenses. They cared for the children, including paying to move them to California and adopt them. Maternal grandparents also paid various probate expenses relating to M.D. and her estate. In mid-2015, maternal grandparents, “as victim representatives for” the victim children (collectively “victims”), obtained unopposed restitution liens on Davis’ Maricopa County real estate. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 13-806(A). ¶4 In January 2020, Davis pled guilty to second degree murder. In the plea agreement, he agreed to “pay restitution to all victims . . . for all economic losses . . . in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000.00.” In April 2020, the court sentenced Davis to prison for 25 calendar years. The court retained jurisdiction over restitution. 1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 2  STATE v. DAVIS Cattani, J., dissenting in part ¶5 The victims filed a timely motion for restitution that, as relevant here,2 sought the following: Category of Restitution Sought Amount Sought Costs of raising the six children, based on an $982,515 evaluation provided for the costs to raise each of the children until they turned 20 years old. Estate and children’s expenses from March to $14,179 December 2015. Probate attorneys’ fees. $40,469.15 Legal fees for custody and adoption of the $19,801.56 children. ¶6 The court held a restitution hearing in October 2020. Davis did not contest the method used “to project the estimated future costs for what raising the children would be” and, for the other categories of restitution sought, conceded the victims “actually paid those expenses or are expected to pay those expenses.”3 Davis argued the amounts sought were not “economic loss” recoverable as restitution under A.R.S. § 13- 105(16) but, instead, were “consequential damages expressly precluded as restitution.” The victims countered that the requested amoun