State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                  IN THE
    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
    STATE OF ARIZONA,
    Appellant,
    v.
    VIVEK A. PATEL,
    Appellee.
    No. CR-19-0366-PR
    May 4, 2021
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge
    No. LC2018-000192-001
    REVERSED; RESTITUTION ORDER REINSTATED
    Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One
    
    247 Ariz. 482
     (2019)
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL:
    Phoenix City Prosecutor’s Office, Jennifer Booth, Amy Offenberg (argued),
    Assistant Phoenix City Prosecutors, Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona
    Michael J. Dew (argued), Michael J. Dew, Attorney at Law, Phoenix,
    Attorney for Vivek A. Patel
    Sabrina Ayers Fisher, Maricopa County Public Advocate, Phoenix; Sherri
    McGuire Lawson, Maricopa County Legal Defender, Jennifer A. Ceppetelli
    (argued), Deputy Legal Defender, Phoenix; and David J. Euchner, Pima
    County Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, Attorneys for Amici Curiae
    Maricopa County Public Advocate, Maricopa County Legal Defender, and
    Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Brunn (Beau) W. Roysden III,
    Solicitor General, Michael T. O’Toole, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals
    Section, Linley Wilson, Deputy Solicitor General, Katherine Jessen,
    Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona
    Attorney General's Office
    Randall Udelman, Arizona Crime Victim Rights Law Group, Scottsdale,
    Attorney for Amici Curiae Arizona Crime Victim Rights Law Group and
    National Crime Victim Law Institute
    JUSTICE MONTGOMERY authored the opinion of the Court, in which
    CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER and
    JUSTICES BOLICK, LOPEZ, and BEENE joined. ∗
    JUSTICE MONTGOMERY, opinion of the Court:
    ¶1             This matter involves a conflict between constitutional and
    statutory provisions concerning a crime victim’s right to restitution. The
    Victims’ Bill of Rights (“VBR”) guarantees a victim’s right to receive prompt
    restitution for loss or injury caused by a defendant’s criminal conduct. Ariz.
    Const. art. 2, § 2.1(A)(8). The VBR also authorizes the legislature to enact
    laws “to define, implement, preserve and protect the rights guaranteed to
    victims.” Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(D). We must determine whether A.R.S.
    § 28-672(G), which limits the amount of restitution that can be awarded to
    a victim for loss resulting from a violation of specified traffic offenses, is
    either an unconstitutional limitation on the right to receive restitution or a
    valid legislative enactment.
    ¶2            We hold today that the constitutional right to receive
    restitution guaranteed by the VBR is a right to receive the full amount of
    economic loss or injury caused by a defendant’s criminal conduct.
    * Although   Justice Andrew W. Gould (ret.) participated in the oral argument
    in this case, he retired before issuance of this opinion and did not take part
    in its drafting.
    2
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    Accordingly, § 28-672(G)’s limitation         on   a   restitution   award is
    unconstitutional and void.
    I.
    ¶3             A driver who violated § 28-672 before 2006 was only
    responsible for a civil penalty. § 28-672 (2005). As such, rights guaranteed
    by the VBR did not apply. Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1 (C) (“‘Victim’ means a
    person against whom the criminal offense has been committed . . . .”
    (emphasis added)). But the legislature amended § 28-672 in 2006 and
    reclassified a violation of the statute as a criminal offense. H.B. 2208, 47th
    Leg., 2nd Reg Sess. (Ariz. 2006). Specifically, a driver commits a
    misdemeanor if they violate any of the enumerated traffic statutes that then
    results in death or serious physical injury. 1 Additionally, the amendment
    added § 28-672(G), which provided that “[r]estitution awarded pursuant to
    section 13–603 as a result of a violation of this section shall not exceed
    [$10,000].” 2 Id.
    ¶4             In June 2017, the Phoenix Municipal Court found Vivek Patel
    guilty of violating § 28-672 for causing serious physical injuries to the victim
    resulting from a failure to yield while turning left. § 28-672(A)(4). The
    victim established that his injuries and expenses amounted to $161,191.99.
    Because Patel’s insurer had already paid $100,000, the amount of restitution
    for the court to consider was $61,191.99.
    ¶5             Patel argued that the court could order no more than $10,000
    in restitution due to § 28-672(G). The State countered that the limitation
    1 The enumerated statutes in 2017 set forth at subsection (A) consisted of:
    (1) § 28-645(A)(3)(a), obeying a red light; (2) § 28-729, proper travel within
    a lane; (3) § 28-771, yielding at an intersection; (4) § 28-772, yielding while
    turning left; (5) § 28-773, obeying stop sign at an intersection; (6) § 28-792,
    yielding right-of-way at crosswalk; (7) § 28-794, exercising due care; (8)
    § 28-797(F), (G), (H), or (I), complying with school crosswalk restrictions;
    (9) § 28-855(B), obeying where to stop at stop sign; and, (10) § 28-857(A),
    encountering stopped school bus. § 28-672 (2017).
    2 The legislature increased the amount of restitution that a court may order
    to $100,000 in 2018. H.B. 2522, 53rd Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2018). This
    increase does not affect our analysis or disposition.
    3
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    was facially unconstitutional because it conflicted with a victim’s right to
    receive restitution under § 2.1(A)(8) of the Arizona Constitution. The
    municipal court agreed with the State and ordered Patel to pay $61,191.99.
    ¶6             The superior court reversed the municipal court’s order. The
    court reasoned that, absent the words “full,” “complete,” “for all losses,” or
    “with no limit” in the text of the VBR, the constitution did not guarantee
    the right to “full and complete restitution.” Therefore, limiting an award of
    restitution was a valid policy decision by the legislature. The court also
    addressed the conflict between A.R.S. § 13-603(C), which requires a court to
    award restitution in the full amount of a victim’s economic loss, and the
    limitation on restitution in § 28-672(G). The court concluded that the
    specific language addressing restitution in § 28-672, the statute Patel was
    convicted of violating, controlled over the more general language regarding
    restitution in § 13-603.
    ¶7             The court of appeals reversed the superior court and
    reinstated the restitution order of $61,191.99. It held that the common
    understanding of “restitution,” along with the plain language of the VBR
    and related jurisprudence, necessarily guaranteed victims an award of
    restitution for the full amount of their economic loss. The court further
    concluded that § 28-672(G)’s limitation on restitution does not “in any way
    advance victims’ rights to restitution” and thus is not a permissible exercise
    of the legislature’s authority under § 2.1(D) of the VBR.
    ¶8            We accepted review because whether the legislature can limit
    a restitution award subject to the VBR is a recurring issue of statewide
    importance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article 6, section 5(3) of the
    Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-2103.
    II.
    ¶9             Patel argues that the plain language of § 2.1(A)(8) does not
    require “full” restitution, and that the legislature has authority pursuant to
    § 2.1(D) to limit the amount of restitution that can be awarded. The State
    counters that the plain language of the VBR guarantees a right to full
    restitution and is what the voters who approved it intended.
    ¶10           We review matters of constitutional and statutory
    interpretation de novo. Johnson Utilities, L.L.C. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 249
    4
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    Ariz. 215, 219 ¶ 11 (2020). When interpreting the VBR, we “follow and
    apply the plain language of this . . . amendment to our constitution.” Knapp
    v. Martone, 
    170 Ariz. 237
    , 239 (1992).
    A.
    ¶11            The VBR “preserve[s] and protect[s] victims’ rights to justice
    and due process.” Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1. This includes guaranteeing the
    “right . . . [t]o receive prompt restitution from the person or persons
    convicted of the criminal conduct that caused the victim’s loss or injury.”
    Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(A)(8).
    ¶12           Patel, focusing on “prompt” in the phrase “prompt
    restitution,” argues that § 2.1(A)(8) does not require “full” restitution
    because “[n]o torture of the English language could possibly transform the
    word ‘prompt’ into that of ‘full’ or ‘unlimited.’” We agree that “prompt”
    does not mean “full.” “Prompt” means “[b]eing on time; punctual; [c]arried
    out or performed without delay: a prompt reply.” Prompt, The American
    Heritage Dictionary, https://www.ahdictionary.com (last visited May 3,
    2021). “Prompt” in § 2.1(A)(8) is thus an attributive adjective that modifies
    restitution temporally. See Bryan A. Garner, The Chicago Guide to Grammar,
    Usage, and Punctuation, § 94, at 58 (2016). Any conclusion that the amount of
    restitution a victim may receive based on what “prompt” means is a non
    sequitur. Whether § 2.1(A)(8) guarantees full restitution depends on the
    meaning of “restitution.”
    ¶13             The VBR does not define “restitution.” State v. Patel, 
    247 Ariz. 482
    , 483 ¶ 7 (App. 2019). Nonetheless, by “follow[ing] and apply[ing] the
    plain language of [the VBR],” Knapp, 
    170 Ariz. at 239
    , we agree with the
    court of appeals that “the ordinary meaning of ‘restitution’ is restoring
    someone to a position he [or she] occupied before a particular event.” Patel,
    247 Ariz. at 484 ¶ 11 (first quoting Hughey v. United States, 
    495 U.S. 411
    , 416
    (1990) (first citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1986); and
    then citing Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979)); and then quoting
    Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1 cmt. e(2)
    (2011) (“Another context in which the word ‘restitution’ means something
    closer to damages is a product of statutes authorizing compensation to
    victims as a part of criminal sentencing.”)).
    5
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    ¶14             The right to restitution is thus a right to the full amount
    required to restore victims to the position they were in before the loss or
    injury caused by the criminal conduct. As the court of appeals further
    noted, id. at ¶ 9, this conclusion comports with our caselaw as exemplified
    by Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s Office v. Downie ex rel. County of Maricopa:
    “[t]he [VBR] gives victims the right to prompt restitution for any loss they
    incur as a result of a crime,” and “Arizona’s criminal code implements this
    constitutional guarantee by requiring ‘the convicted person to make
    restitution to . . . the victim of the crime . . . in the full amount of the [victim’s]
    economic loss.’” 
    218 Ariz. 466
    , 468 ¶ 7 (2008) (emphasis added) (citations
    omitted).
    ¶15              The scope of restitution afforded to victims when the VBR
    was considered supports this conclusion. At the time voters approved the
    VBR, victims were clearly entitled to full restitution. A.R.S. § 13-603(C)
    (providing that “the court shall require the convicted person to make
    restitution . . . in the full amount of the economic loss as determined by the
    court”). And just as we presume that the legislature is aware of the law
    when it enacts a statute, Daou v. Harris, 
    139 Ariz. 353
    , 357 (1984), we
    presume voters are as well. Cf. State ex rel. Thomas v. Klein, 
    214 Ariz. 205
    ,
    208 ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (noting statutory definitions of criminal offenses at
    time VBR enacted to determine scope of right in question and assess
    validity of legislative enactment).
    ¶16            Arguments and analysis related to the VBR in the publicity
    pamphlet also support the conclusion that voters sought to guarantee a
    right to full restitution. Arguments supporting passage spoke of the need
    for a constitutional right to restitution while arguments in opposition
    specifically noted that statutes already guaranteed that right. Ariz. Sec’y of
    State,        1990        Publicity       Pamphlet        35–42        (1990),
    https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/pubpam90.pdf. Legislative analysis
    noted that the VBR would guarantee a right to “receive restitution” and that
    the VBR “would require the defendant to pay the victim for any harm
    caused to the victim. This requirement acknowledges that the victim has
    been harmed and should be compensated for that harm.” Id. at 35.
    ¶17            Quoting this same language, the court of appeals concluded
    that “[g]iven the reference to payment for ‘any harm,’ we find it implausible
    that the electorate intended to only guarantee a victim partial restitution.”
    Patel, 247 Ariz. at 485 ¶ 12. So do we, and given that the text in question
    6
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    does not limit the amount of restitution, we will not “restrict the guarantee
    by adding words of limitation ‘contrary to the plain language used.’”
    Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 
    152 Ariz. 9
    , 13 (1986) (refusing to limit
    the constitutional right to recover for damages enshrined in Article 18,
    section 6 of the Arizona Constitution (quoting Kilpatrick v. Superior Court,
    
    105 Ariz. 413
    , 419–20 (1970)). The VBR guarantees full restitution for crime
    victims. Patel, 247 Ariz. at 485 ¶ 12.
    ¶18            Patel, however, asserts that such an interpretation rewrites
    the VBR to state that victims have an “unlimited” right to restitution,
    unhampered by any statutory directive. We disagree. While the amount
    of compensation will vary depending on the crime and resulting harm, id.
    at 484 ¶ 11, the loss for which restitution can be awarded is not without
    limit. Section 2.1(A)(8) limits restitution to loss or injury caused by a
    defendant’s criminal conduct. The particular nature of the loss in question
    is further clarified in statute and our case law. Pursuant to A.R.S.
    § 13-105(16), “[e]conomic loss includes lost interest, lost earnings and other
    losses that would not have been incurred but for the offense. Economic loss
    does not include losses incurred by the convicted person, damages for pain
    and suffering, punitive damages or consequential damages.” And as this
    Court explained in State v. Wilkinson, “the loss must be one that the victim
    would not have incurred but for the defendant’s criminal offense,” and “the
    criminal conduct must directly cause the economic loss.” 
    202 Ariz. 27
    , 29
    ¶ 7 (2002); see also Town of Gilbert Prosecutor’s Office, 218 Ariz. at 469 ¶ 13
    (stating that “[r]estitution . . . should not compensate victims for more than
    their actual loss”); State v. Guadagni, 
    218 Ariz. 1
    , 5 ¶ 14 (App. 2008)
    (reasoning that for restitution to be awarded, there has to be a crime
    “committed against someone”).
    ¶19            Furthermore, a hearing to determine the amount of restitution
    a victim is entitled to is not a free-for-all. In such proceedings, “[t]he State
    has the burden to prove a restitution claim by a preponderance of the
    evidence,” 3 and a court must protect the due process rights of a defendant.
    State v. Quijada, 
    246 Ariz. 356
    , 364 ¶¶ 22, 24 (App. 2019). As for concerns
    3A victim also has “the right to present evidence or information and to
    make an argument to the court, personally or through counsel, at any
    proceeding to determine the amount of restitution pursuant to § 13-804.”
    A.R.S. § 13-4437(E).
    7
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    raised by Patel and amici regarding a conflict between a restitution hearing
    and the right to a civil trial, we have previously observed that the statutory
    framework for imposing restitution “prevents the restitution statutes from
    conflicting with the right to a civil jury trial preserved by Arizona
    Constitution Article II, Section 23.” Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. at 29 ¶ 11. Nothing
    in the case before us calls that conclusion into question.
    B.
    ¶20            Patel additionally asserts that the limitation on awarding
    restitution in § 28-672(G) is a valid exercise of the legislature’s authority to
    “enact substantive and procedural laws to define, implement, preserve and
    protect the rights guaranteed to victims by [the VBR].” Ariz. Const. art. 2,
    § 2.1(D). We find his argument unpersuasive.
    ¶21             State v. Hansen, 
    215 Ariz. 287
     (2007), provides an example of a
    valid exercise of legislative authority regarding restitution pursuant to
    § 2.1(D). In Hansen, this Court addressed a conflict between A.R.S.
    § 13-804(D) and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.6. 215 Ariz. at 289
    ¶ 8. The legislature directed that “[r]estitution payments . . . shall not be
    stayed if the defendant files a notice of appeal,” whereas Rule 31.6 provided
    that “[a] sentence to pay a fine or restitution shall be stayed pending
    appeal.” Id. at 288 ¶ 1. This Court upheld the provision in § 13–804(D) as
    a valid exercise of authority pursuant to § 2.1(D) based, in part, on the
    reality that “the statute enhances the likelihood that victims of crime will
    receive prompt restitution,” and therefore “the statute advances victims’
    rights.” Id. at 291 ¶ 16. In contrast, § 28-672(G) not only fails to enhance the
    likelihood that victims will receive prompt restitution, it precludes any
    recovery of restitution to victims who suffer loss or injury in excess of
    $10,000. Section 28-672(G) is not a valid exercise of the authority granted
    by § 2.1(D).
    C.
    ¶22            Patel further argues that if we find the limitation on
    restitution in § 28-672 is not a valid exercise of legislative authority, then
    similar limitations in A.R.S. §§ 13-809(B) and 8-344 are likewise invalid. We
    disagree that such a Hobson’s choice is before us and address each statute
    in turn.
    8
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    1.
    ¶23            Section 13-809(B) directs that § 13-804, which specifies the
    way a trial court determines and orders restitution, “does not apply to
    traffic offenses, except for a violation of § 28-661, 28-662, 28-693, 28-1381,
    28-1382 or 28-1383.” 4 According to Patel, the failure to include § 28-672
    among the list of criminal traffic statutes evinces a legislative intent to
    exclude § 28-672 from traffic offenses for which full restitution can be
    awarded. If that were true, then we would have to draw the same
    conclusion that A.R.S. §§ 28-675 and -676, felony statutes enacted at the
    same time as § 28-672, see infra ¶ 30, are also excluded from the requirement
    to impose full restitution. We decline to adopt Patel’s reasoning. State v.
    Green, 
    248 Ariz. 133
    , 135 ¶ 8 (2020) (“When the plain text of a statute is clear
    and unambiguous, it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional
    violation results.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted));
    Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 
    501 U.S. 680
    , 719 (1991) (Scalia, J.,
    dissenting) (discussing “the hoary canon of construction, expressio unius est
    exclusio alterius” and citing Burns v. United States, 
    501 U.S. 129
    , 136–38
    (1991), abrogated by Dillon v. United States, 
    560 U.S. 817
     (2010) (stating that
    invocation of expressio unius inappropriate where it would lead to absurd
    and arguably unconstitutional results)). Instead, we read the list of statutes
    set forth as exemplifying the category of traffic offenses—criminal traffic
    offenses—to which § 13-804 does apply.
    ¶24              This reading of § 13-809(B) ensures that civil traffic offenses
    remain categorically excluded from an award of restitution, which “both
    fulfills legislative intent and furthers legislative goals.” Est. of Hernandez by
    Hernandez-Wheeler ex rel. Hernandez v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 
    177 Ariz. 244
    , 249
    (1994). As noted below, infra ¶¶ 30, 33–35, the legislature considered
    creating a statutory right to restitution for civil traffic offenses but declined
    to do so. This construction also permits § 13-809 to be read in harmony with
    §§ 13-603(C) and -804 for the purpose of awarding restitution consistent
    with the VBR. Est. of Hernandez by Hernandez-Wheeler ex rel. Hernandez, 177
    4 The listed offenses are criminal statutes penalizing the failure to stop and
    remain at the scene of an accident involving an injury or death, § 28-661;
    failing to stop or remain at the scene of an accident involving damage to a
    vehicle, § 28-662; reckless driving, § 28-693; and, offenses involving driving
    under the influence, §§ 28-1381, -1382, and -1383.
    9
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    Ariz. at 249 (stating that “whenever possible, this [C]ourt interprets . . .
    apparently conflicting statutes in a way that harmonizes them and gives
    rational meaning to [all]”). Therefore, there is no basis to hold § 13-809(B)
    unconstitutional.
    2.
    ¶25            The same is true for Patel’s argument that § 8-344, which
    requires a court to “order the juvenile to make full or partial restitution to
    the victim of the offense for which the juvenile was adjudicated
    delinquent,” is a valid legislative limit on restitution in juvenile cases.
    While making much of the “partial restitution” portion of the statute, Patel
    overlooks additional language in § 8-344(C). Subsection (C) permits a court
    to “order one or both of the juvenile's custodial parents to make restitution
    to the victim of the offense for which the juvenile was adjudicated
    delinquent.” In such an instance, subsection (C) further states that a court
    “shall order the juvenile to make either full or partial restitution, regardless
    of the juvenile’s insufficient earning capacity.” Therefore, § 8-344, unlike
    § 28-672(G), does not limit a court from awarding a victim the full amount
    of restitution they have a right to receive, and we will not read § 8-344 to
    say otherwise. 5     Accordingly, there is no basis to hold § 8-344
    unconstitutional.
    ¶26              “[T]here can be only one choice when a statute conflicts with
    the constitution. ‘The constitution of this state, second only to the
    constitution of the United States, is the supreme law of Arizona. Any act of
    the legislature . . . which contravenes its provisions must fall.’” W. Devcor,
    Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 
    168 Ariz. 426
    , 430–31 (1991) (quoting Miller v. Heller,
    
    68 Ariz. 352
    , 357 (1949)); see also State v. Lamberton, 
    183 Ariz. 47
    , 50 (1995)
    (stating that “the implementing statutes and [court] rules cannot eliminate
    or narrow rights guaranteed by the state constitution”); State v. Roscoe, 
    185 Ariz. 68
    , 72 (1996) (finding legislative amendment to A.R.S. § 13-4433
    unconstitutional because it “interferes with rights provided by the Arizona
    Constitution” and stating that the legislature may not restrict rights created
    5 Section 8-344(C) does include a limit as to how much restitution one or
    both custodial parents can be ordered to pay pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-661,
    which is $10,000. However, § 12-661 does not function as a limitation on
    the total amount of restitution that can be ordered pursuant to § 8-344, so
    we are not faced with the same limitation issue presented by § 28-672(G).
    10
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    by the people); Klein, 214 Ariz. at 209 ¶ 15 (invalidating a legislative act
    redefining criminal offenses that narrowed class of victims eligible to assert
    rights under the VBR and declaring that “[t]he purpose of the
    Implementation Act was to allow the Legislature to address all of the
    procedural and substantive issues that might accompany the enactment of
    the Victims’ Bill of Rights, not to restrict its application by adopting a
    limited definition of criminal offense diminishing the application of the
    [VBR].”). We therefore hold § 28-672(G) is an unconstitutional limitation of
    a crime victim’s right to receive prompt restitution and is thus void.
    Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co., 
    1 Ariz. App. 562
    , 565 (1965) (“It is our absolute
    duty to protect constitutional rights.” (citing Bristor v. Cheatham, 
    75 Ariz. 227
    , 234 (1953)).
    III.
    ¶27           Having found that § 28-672(G) is unconstitutional, we must
    determine whether it can be severed from the remainder of the statute.
    Patel and amici assert that subsection (G) is integral to the legislature’s
    amendments to § 28-672 in 2006, and that the legislature’s efforts to amend
    the subsection in 2018 support this conclusion. In contrast, the State argues
    that subsection (G) can be severed. First, the State notes that absent
    subsection (G), the remaining provisions of § 28-672 are fully operative.
    Second, the State concludes that the legislative history does not provide an
    indication of the type of connection between the criminal provisions of §
    28-672 and the restitution limitation that would render subsection (G)
    unseverable.
    ¶28            Our determination of whether subsection (G) can be severed
    from § 28-672 consists of two inquiries. First, we consider whether the
    remaining valid provisions “are effective and enforceable standing alone
    and independent of those portions declared unconstitutional.” State Comp.
    Fund v. Symington, 
    174 Ariz. 188
    , 195 (1993) (quoting State v. Prentiss, 
    163 Ariz. 81
    , 86 (1989)). Second, we consider whether “the valid and invalid
    portions are . . . so intimately connected as to raise the presumption the
    legislature would not have enacted one without the other, and [whether]
    the invalid portion was . . . the inducement of the act.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Prentiss,
    
    163 Ariz. at 86
    ). Our conclusion ultimately rests on our “ability to
    determine the intent of the lawmakers who enacted the statute . . . in order
    to give full effect to their intent.” Benjamin v. Ariz. Dep’t of Rev., 
    163 Ariz. 182
    , 183 (App. 1989).
    11
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    ¶29              With respect to the first inquiry, the remaining valid
    provisions of § 28-672 are fully effective and enforceable without subsection
    (G). The remaining subsections either define the various ways the statute
    can be violated, (A), (J); list the penalty or penalties to be imposed, (B), (C),
    (D), (E), (I); permit dismissal of the prosecution if the victim “acknowledges
    receipt of satisfaction for the injury,” (F) 6; or establish the time within which
    a prosecution must commence, (H). None refer to or are specifically
    referenced by subsection (G).
    ¶30            As for the second inquiry, which focuses on the relationship
    between the criminal subsections of § 28-672 and subsection (G), there is
    nothing in the legislative history that indicates such an intimate connection
    to suggest they would not have been enacted separately or that one was the
    inducement for the other. As amended in the House, H.B. 2208 created two
    new felony statutes, §§ 28-675 and -676, and amended § 28-672. H. Floor
    Amend. to H.B. 2208, 47th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Mar. 1, 2006). The statutes
    provided for penalties where a driver violated one of several listed traffic
    statutes resulting in death or serious physical injury, respectively, and was
    not authorized to drive. Id. An additional amendment by the Senate
    Judiciary Committee added two new restitution statutes, A.R.S. §§ 28-677
    and -678, which created a statutory right to restitution for economic loss
    where a person was found responsible for any civil traffic violation
    resulting in serious physical injury or death. Comm. on Judiciary, S.
    Amend. to H.B. 2208, 47th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Mar. 21, 2006).
    ¶31           Legislative materials accompanying the bill underscored the
    motivation for and goal of the legislation. The House Bill Summary for H.B.
    2208, as passed by the House, noted that, § 28-672, only provided for an
    “enhanced civil penalty” for the conduct under review. Ariz. State H. B.
    Summary for H.B. 2208 47th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Mar. 6, 2006). In contrast,
    the proposed statutes “establish[] vehicular homicide as a class 4 felony and
    vehicular assault as a class 5 felony.” Id.
    6 Patel referenced § 28-672(F) at oral argument in support of his conclusion
    that subsection (G) cannot be severed because restitution is an integral part
    of the statute. However, if the victim has been made whole for his or her
    injury or loss, which subsection (F) necessarily entails, then there is no
    restitution to be ordered under subsection (G) regardless of the amount in
    question.
    12
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    ¶32             The Senate Fact Sheet for H.B. 2208 provided extensive
    background on non-motorist fatalities in traffic accidents with detailed
    statistics illustrating the problem. Ariz. State S. Fact Sheet for H.B. 2208
    47th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Mar. 16, 2006) (noting further that “Arizona [was]
    one of four states without a vehicle-specific homicide statute”). In
    particular, the Fact Sheet compared Arizona to the rest of the country with
    respect to the average number of traffic fatalities per 100,000 persons, the
    percentage of intersection fatalities comprising the total number of traffic
    fatalities, and the percentage of non-motorists killed in traffic accidents
    comprising the total number of traffic fatalities. Id. Arizona’s numbers did
    not fare well in the comparison.
    ¶33             The only discussion concerning restitution occurred between
    the bill’s sponsor, Representative Andy Biggs, and a member of the Senate
    Judiciary Committee, Senator William Brotherton, while addressing the
    civil restitution statutes in the amendment before the Committee. Hearing
    on H.B. 2208 Before the S. Comm. on Judiciary, 47th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz.
    2006) (statement of Rep. Andy Biggs, Member, H. Comm. on Transp.).
    Senator Brotherton highlighted differences between a civil traffic hearing
    and a criminal case and noted that, unlike in a criminal case, a person
    appearing at a civil traffic hearing is not entitled to counsel and the matter
    is presented by a police officer. Id. (statement of Sen. William Brotherton,
    Member, S. Comm. on Judiciary). Senator Brotherton further expressed
    concern about the amount of restitution that could be ordered arising from
    a traffic accident and that the amendment pending before the Judiciary
    Committee also required reimbursement to an insurance company for
    amounts paid to an injured person. Id.
    ¶34            Rep. Biggs expressed a willingness to see a floor amendment
    eliminate the requirement to reimburse an insurance company and
    establish a cap on the amount of restitution that could be awarded. Id.
    (statement of Rep. Andy Biggs, Member, H. Comm. on Transportation).
    There was no concern expressed with respect to awarding restitution as a
    result of violating either proposed criminal statute.
    ¶35           Thereafter, a Senate floor amendment to H.B. 2208 deleted the
    proposed civil restitution statutes and created new provisions within
    § 28-672. Sen. Floor Amend. to H.B. 2208, 47th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (May 12,
    2006). The amendment created subsection (G) with the language limiting
    restitution and created a misdemeanor analogue in § 28-672 to §§ 28-675
    13
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    and -676. 7 Id. Specifically, the amendment made it a class 3 misdemeanor
    to violate the exact same list of traffic statutes resulting in death or serious
    physical injury as listed in the felony statutes, minus the provisions
    addressing the lack of the authorization to drive. Id.
    ¶36             We cannot presume from this history that the criminal
    provisions of § 28-672 would not have been enacted without the restitution
    limitation or that it was the restitution limitation that induced the
    enactment of the criminal provisions. While both were enacted at the same
    time, it is clear that the legislature’s primary focus was on addressing non-
    motorist traffic fatalities. Restitution was addressed in the specific context
    of civil, not criminal, traffic violations. We may therefore only “presume
    that had the legislature been aware of the unconstitutionality of the
    limitation . . . , they would have enacted the remainder of the statute
    without what is now the offending portion.” Prentiss, 
    163 Ariz. at 86
    (quoting State v. Watson, 
    120 Ariz. 441
    , 445 (1978)).
    ¶37            Patel’s and amici’s reference to subsection (G)’s amendment
    in 2018 does not alter our assessment. Following a tragic incident where a
    driver—lacking the requisite insurance due to a previous DUI offense—ran
    a red light and killed a pedestrian, the legislature sought to close this lack
    of insurance “loophole” in §§ 28-675 and -676. Hearing on H.B. 2522 Before
    the H. Comm. on Judiciary and Pub. Safety, 53rd Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2018)
    (statement of Rep. Maria Syms, Member, H. Comm. on Judiciary and Pub.
    Safety). Authorities realized in reviewing the pedestrian’s death that
    neither §§ 28-675 nor -676 provided a basis to charge a felony under the
    circumstances. Id. But at no time over the course of the bill’s enactment
    was there any conditioning or linking of restitution with the definition and
    classification of criminal offenses in § 28-672.
    7 The crimes of assault and driving under the influence (“DUI”) illustrate a
    similar statutory approach. The basic elements comprising misdemeanor
    assault are set forth at A.R.S. § 13-1203, with felony classifications in A.R.S.
    § 13-1204 based on additional circumstances, such as using a deadly
    weapon or rendering a victim unable to resist. A misdemeanor DUI, A.R.S.
    § 28-1381, can be classified as a felony if a child under the age of 15 is in the
    car or if the impaired driver has had their privilege to drive suspended,
    cancelled, revoked, or refused. A.R.S. § 28-1383.
    14
    STATE V. PATEL
    Opinion of the Court
    ¶38            In light of the fact that it is fundamentally the province of the
    legislature to “[d]efin[e] crimes and fix[] penalties,” State v. Wagstaff, 
    164 Ariz. 485
    , 490 (1990), we are mindful that finding subsection (G)
    unseverable would necessarily result in finding the entirety of the 2006
    amendments to § 28-672 invalid. This would reinstate the previous civil
    penalties, negating the current criminal classification for violations of
    § 28-672. And on five separate occasions during the intervening years since
    H.B. 2208 was enacted, the legislature has added to the list of traffic
    violations in §§ 28-672, -675, and -676. Therefore, with the foregoing in
    mind and having concluded that the valid provisions of § 28-672 are fully
    operable without subsection (G), and that the legislative history provides
    no indication that the criminal provisions and subsection (G) are so
    intimately related that one would not have been enacted without the other,
    we find subsection (G) severable. If we have erred in discerning the
    legislature’s intent in limiting restitution when amending § 28-672, it may
    certainly exercise its authority to reclassify the penalties therein. But, once
    having created a criminal offense, the legislature may not restrict the rights
    of victims “against whom the criminal offense has been committed.” Ariz.
    Const. art. 2, § 2.1(C).
    IV.
    ¶39           Section 28-672(G) is an unconstitutional limitation on the
    right to receive prompt restitution as guaranteed by the VBR. We affirm
    the court of appeals opinion, reverse the superior court’s order, vacate any
    resulting restitution judgment, and reinstate the municipal court’s
    restitution order in the amount of $61,191.99.
    15