Although the statute applies to felony convictions and attempted felony convictions, it does not apply to Jackson’s conviction for a misdemeanor because the statute expressly fails to include misdemeanor convictions. ¶ 10 A trial court only has the authority to impose these probationary terms authorized by statute. Coy v. Fields, 200 Ariz. 442, 444, ¶ 4, 27 P.3d 799, 801 (App. 2001); State v. Vargas-Burgos, 162 Ariz. 325, 326, 783 P.2d 264, 265 (App.1989). It is fundamental error to prescribe a probationary term that exceeds the period permitted by statute. State v. Bouchier, 159 Ariz. 346, 347, 767 P.2d 233, 234 (App.1989). When a trial court exceeds its sentencing authority, the sentence is void as to the excess portion. United States v. Green, 735 F.2d 1203, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Here, the probationary term is illegal
holding that probation does not constitute a sentence holding that the trial court exceeded its authority by conditioning probation upon the payment of taxes and that the excess sentence imposed was void recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum holding that the sentence entered by the circuit court was illegal because the court had no authority to impose a sentence that exceeded the punishment fixed by the jury holding that probation is not a sentence