In Maciborski v. Chase Service Corp. of Arizona, 161 Ariz. 557, 779 P.2d 1296 (App. 1989) the issue was whether timely notice was given pursuant to A.R.S. 33-743(A) (2007), which requires that a notice of forfeiture be served "at least twenty days prior to the effective date of the forfeiture." Id. at 559-60, 779 P.2d at 1298-99. The Court noted that "there is a decided conflict of opinion among courts" as to the "effect phrases such as 'at least' or 'not less than' have on the computation of time where an act is required to take place 'at least' or 'not less than' a certain number of days before a known future date." Id. at 562, 779 P.2d at 1301. Many courts in other jurisdictions compute timeliness by including one terminal day and excluding the other. Id. Other courts, however, "take the view that words such as 'at least' or 'not less than' imply a count of 'clear' or 'full' days and that when such phrases are used, both the first and the last terminal days must be excluded from the computation." Id. Because imposing a "clear day" requirement would, in effect, require a twenty-one day minimum rather than the unambiguous twenty days proscribed by the rule, we held that the general rule of including the last terminal day in the computation applies. Id. at 563, 779 P.2d at 1302. The "general rule" at issue in Maciborski is A.R.S. 1-243 (2002) (explaining time is "computed by excluding the first day and including the last day"), and Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) (providing that "the day of the act, event or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included" and "the last day of the period so computed shall be included." Rule 1.3 is the analogous criminal rule.