State v. Robinson ( 2023 )

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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, ex rel., ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
JUSTIN RAY ROBINSON,
Defendant/Appellant.
No. 1 CA-TX 22-0001
FILED 3-16-2023
Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court
No. TX2021-000098
The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge
AFFIRMED
APPEARANCES
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Penny Taylor Moore
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Arizona Department of Revenue
Justin Ray Robinson, Buckeye
Defendant/Appellant
STATE v. ROBINSON
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.
W I L L I A M S, Judge:
¶1 Justin Robinson appeals the tax court’s judgment against him
for unpaid taxes. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 For tax years 2014, 2015, and 2016, Robinson and his now
ex-wife filed income tax returns but did not pay the taxes they owed. In
2021, the Arizona Department of Revenue (“ADOR”) sued the Robinsons
for the unpaid taxes. Robinson’s ex-wife and ADOR reached a settlement
agreement, but the claim against Robinson remained. Robinson, now an
inmate in the Arizona Department of Corrections, wrote to the tax court
informing he had no “prior notice of past due taxes” and no way to pay
them.
¶3 ADOR moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that
Robinson’s letter constituted an Answer, that he did “not deny that he owes
the taxes at issue or any other allegation in the [c]omplaint,” and that his
failure to deny the allegations constituted an admission under Arizona Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(d). Robinson filed no response, and the tax court
granted ADOR’s motion.
¶4 Robinson appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6,
Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-2101(A).
DISCUSSION
¶5 We review the legal basis for the tax court’s judgment on the
pleadings de novo, while accepting as true Robinson’s allegations in his
pleadings. Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 216 Ariz. 216,
218–19, ¶ 6 (App. 2007) (as amended).
¶6 Robinson does not deny he owes the back taxes. Instead, he
asks this court to “cancel the accrued interest and to stop the interest being
2
STATE v. ROBINSON
Decision of the Court
added” on his tax debt because of his financial limitations while
imprisoned.
¶7 Robinson has not provided us with any legal authority (and
we are aware of none) that allows this court to waive accrued interest when
there has been no allegation or showing that the tax court erred in its ruling.
See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (noting that arguments in a brief must contain
“citations of legal authorities . . . on which the appellant relies”); In re
Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62, 64–65, ¶ 6 (2013) (“[W]e consider waived those
arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record,
or authority.”). On this record, there is no legal basis to grant Robinson’s
requested relief.
CONCLUSION
¶8 We affirm the tax court’s ruling.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
3