State v. Berg, 76 Ariz. 96, 103, 259 P.2d 261, 266 (1953), overruled on other grounds by State v. Pina, 94 Ariz. 243, 245, 383 P.2d 167, 168 (1963). bs%0c{^L4-\A Y 31 The trial court found his claim precluded and, on review, we also denied relief. See A.R.S. 8202(A). 323 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[]/Index[309 31]/Info 308 0 R/Length 75/Prev 164627/Root 310 0 R/Size 340/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream hUmo0+}@~KDx)-RM(\h$HPnI(EVmq#R~R( 4%HSDHHHNb 0xbJHfTG}4LaVmf7,-qvE1k:m-xtSgCGU;~q:0+QC[uWt6 FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. As the state points out, in addition to substantive offenses enumerated in A.R.S. Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox! Self-Service Center Web(206) 309-5013 Seattle, WA Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, DUI & DWI Website Email Profile John Merriam PREMIUM (206) 729-5252 Seattle, WA Maritime Law Website Email Profile Renee F Lee PREMIUM (425) 645-0433 Everett, WA Family Law, Arbitration & Mediation, Divorce Website Email Profile Richard John Davies PREMIUM (206) 957 We did so, however, without identifying which of the several potential jurisdictional arguments we were resolving. See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126, 2, 263 P.3d 675, 676 (App. GermanGreek No. 25 Therefore, the superior court that presided over Espinoza's 2004 adult conviction for criminal damage lacked the jurisdiction to add additional consequences to Espinoza's delinquency adjudication. P., to challenge the terms of his probation. 5 After Espinoza echoed his attorney's comments, the trial court asked, Are you sure? [Y]ou know, you were supposed to register? Yiddish WebArizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 400 West Congress Street Tucson,Arizona United States 85701 520-628-6954 Mon-Fri 8:00am to 5:00pm Contact This court hears See State v. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1518, 223 P.3d 653, 65556 (2010) (concluding reasoning of two prior supreme court cases, which found jurisdictional error arising from mere procedural defects in charging process, no longer tenable); Marvin Johnson, P.C. 6 The exclusionary rule is, in essence, judge-made law designed to vindicate the constitutional right to privacy as embodied in the Fourth [A]mendment [] to the Constitution of the United States and in article 2 section[] 8 of the Arizona Constitution. State v. Coates, 165 Ariz. 154, 157, 797 P.2d 693, 696 (App. This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. 3 In 2003, when Espinoza was nineteen, he was indicted for burglary after he broke into a car and stole the vehicle's stereo speakers. Espinoza maintained there had been no lawful order requiring him to register in 2004, because the juvenile court had not ordered him to register as a result of his delinquency adjudication, and the superior court's order requiring him to register as a condition of the probation imposed for criminal damage therefore was void and unenforceable.. 3 In his opening brief, Navarro argued the warrantless breath test violated the Fourth Amendment because it was the product of coercion and involuntary consent. The state responded that the search was proper under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), which we address below. Although our prior case law has established there is no abstract jurisdictional distinction created by a superior court's decision to divide itself into different administrative divisions, see Marvin Johnson, 184 Ariz. at 102, 907 P.2d at 71, our legislature has, in 8202, expressly set forth a specific, and jurisdictionally relevant, subcategory of the superior court called the juvenile court. 14 According to the state, the original superior court order requiring Espinoza to register as a condition of his probation, as well as the two convictions for registration violations that followed, all fell within the court's subject matter jurisdiction and therefore were not void ab initio, but voidable orders that could have been modified only on appeal or by proper and timely post-judgment motion. State v. Bryant, 219 Ariz. 514, 15, 200 P.3d 1011, 1015 (App.2008); see also State v. Cramer, 192 Ariz. 150, 16, 962 P.2d 224, 227 (App.1998) (A judgment that is voidable is binding and enforceable until it is reversed or vacated.). Lisa ABRAMS, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF PIMA, Respondent, The State of Arizona, Real Party in Interest. But, as explained below, there is a concrete jurisdictional boundary, expressly set forth by our legislature, between a superior court addressing felony charges in its adult jurisdiction and when it addresses juvenile delinquency in its capacity as a juvenile court. With respect to the analogous article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution,2 our own supreme court has long recognized that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not require any warrant, Argetakis v. State, 24 Ariz. 599, 606, 608-09, 212 P. 372, 374-75 (1923), and that non-invasive breath tests for DUI arrestees fall within this exception. Examples: 1 CA-CV 95-0587; 2 CA-SA 89-338; 1 CA in the first example means Court of Appeals, Division 1 (Phoenix). TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. 2 To address the arguments raised by the parties, we are required to begin at the beginning of Espinoza's criminal history, as it relates to sex offender registration. See Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323, 31, 295 P.3d 421, 428 (2013); State v. Albe, 148 Ariz. 87, 89, 713 P.2d 288, 290 (App. 12-120.09. RomanianRussian State v. Espinoza, No. Rather, the phrase subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case. Id. State v. Williams, 220 Ariz. 331, 9, 206 P.3d 780, 783 (App .2008).5 As discussed, the law is unambiguous that the offense of criminal damage is not a predicate offense for requiring sex offender registration. Decided: April 30, 2012 Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant. Noting that Espinoza had missed appointments with the probation department and had failed to register, the state argued he was not likely to succeed on probation. 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. OPINION. 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, Specifically, the state charged him with failing to give notice of a change of name or address and failing to obtain a valid nonoperating identification license or driver license. That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. And I have followed through. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Valenzuela is distinguishable insofar as that case involved not a breath test but a warrantless blood test, the results of which were inadmissible absent either voluntary consent or the good-faith exception. Appellate information for filing in an Arizona Court of Appeals - Division Two. IcelandicIndonesian In the context of challenges to criminal judgments that have become final, our state has adopted a modern approach, in conformity with the Restatement, which resists the temptation to characterize even serious procedural irregularities as violations of jurisdictional court authority. %PDF-1.7 % The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of four months' incarceration, pursuant to A.R.S. I will do that if I get probation. The court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Espinoza on three years' probation, specifying as a condition of probation that he register as a sex offender immediately upon his release from custody (hereinafter the 2004 order). In that proceeding, he argued he was entitled to relief because he was actually innocent of the charge pursuant to Rule 32.1(h), a ground not automatically subject to preclusion for untimely filing. JV132744, 188 Ariz. 180, 181, 933 P.2d 1248, 1249 (App.1996) (same).4 It likewise lacked jurisdiction in its adult-court capacity because the offense of attempted child molestation neither is itemized as an offense requiring adult prosecution under 13501, nor was jurisdiction for that offense transferred to the adult division pursuant to 8327. Juv. Court Vacancies It provides: No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.. We assume trial courts know the law in the absence of evidence to the contrary. v. Myers, 184 Ariz. 98, 10102, 907 P.2d 67, 7071 (1995) (noting imprecise use of jurisdictional language in cases involving non-jurisdictional error). FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. [emailprotected] Your Service ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184. Educator Links 133822 and 133824. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions Decisions. e, 12 cmt. CONCURRING: JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge and J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge. 133821(A)(1)(18), (20)-(21).2. 8327. CORP Website Given that Espinoza had not yet been sentenced on the criminal damage offense, the prosecutor could not have been suggesting that Espinoza had failed to register for that offense. However, to the extent the trial court perceived its authority to enter the order as derived from Espinoza's juvenile adjudication for attempted child molestation, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to issue it. This includes the court jurisdiction, process, FAQ, guides, resources, and a link to 31 A judgment or order is void, and not merely voidable, if the court that entered it lacked jurisdiction to render the particular judgment or order entered. State v. Cramer, 192 Ariz. 150, 16, 962 P.2d 224, 227 (App.1998).6 Because the trial court that presided over Espinoza's 2004 adult conviction lacked jurisdiction to order Espinoza to register as a sex offender based on the previous delinquency adjudication, its order requiring him to register was void. MalayMaltese It has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). 133821(D). 8 The trial court summarily denied relief, citing Espinoza's failure to comply with Rule 32.2(b), which requires summary dismissal of an untimely notice of post-conviction relief that fails to include meritorious reasons why the claim was not stated in a timely manner. As the court noted, notwithstanding Espinoza's blanket statement that Rule 32 permits an untimely claim of actual innocence, neither Espinoza's notice nor his petition for relief set forth the reasons why the claim was not filed in a timely manner [and] has taken over four years to file. In addition to its summary denial, the court concluded Espinoza's claims lacked merit, finding Espinoza could not use the instant petition to challenge a condition of probation ordered in a separate cause number and noting he had acknowledged in a change-of-plea hearing that he had an affirmative duty to register and had not done so. On review of the trial court's ruling, we found no abuse of discretion and denied relief. This site serves as a portal to a variety of information including case dockets on active cases, recent court decisions His attorneys failed to challenge either of these convictions in timely, of-right petitions for postconviction relief. In context, the record is clear that (1) the court believed Espinoza had a duty to register as a sex offender predating and unrelated to his criminal damage conviction, (2) the presentence report, which the court read, contained the only information before it indicating he had a pre-existing duty to register, and (3) the presentence report indicated that duty had arisen from the juvenile adjudication for a sexual offense. 1990). All rights reserved. State v. Caez, 202 Ariz. 133, 70, 42 P.3d 564, 586 (2002) (acknowledging suppression arguments are subject to appellate review even absent a pretrial motion to suppress). WebArizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 400 West Congress Street Tucson,Arizona United States 85701 520-628-6954 Mon-Fri 8:00am to 5:00pm Contact This court hears appeals from the Superior Court in the following counties: Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz Contact Information Phone #520-628-6954 Staff Login, Translate this Page: No. The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. 2 CACR 20100114PR (memorandum decision filed July 9, 2010). WebIt has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). 2 CA-CV 2022-0083-FC Filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. As our supreme court has recently observed, the conclusion that a court cannot enter a valid judgment because of a procedural error does not mean that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. 10 While review of that post-conviction proceeding was pending, Espinoza filed a notice of post-conviction relief challenging his sentence in the 2004 criminal damage case, specifically the order requiring him to register as a sex offender as a condition of his probation. 2 CACR 20110214. When Navarro filed his suppression motion below, he acknowledged that our now vacated decision in State v. Valenzuela, 237 Ariz. 307, 350 P.3d 811 (App. Legal Reference & Links WebJustia US Law Case Law Arizona Case Law Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One - Unpublished Opinions Decisions 2023 GOMEZ POOLS v. ARIZONA REGISTRAR GOMEZ POOLS v. ARIZONA REGISTRAR Annotate this Case Download PDF of 7 Terms of Service apply. In response, Espinoza maintains the superior court lacked jurisdiction when it ordered him to register as a condition of his probation for criminal damage and, therefore, that order and any further orders based upon it were void ab initio and subject to challenge even after they became final. 21 In Maldonado, the trial court had erroneously entered a judgment of guilt against a defendant who had never been properly charged. 13118, the state has alleged, and the trier of fact has found, was committed for the purpose of sexual gratification. But true jurisdictional limitations on a court's authority remain and it is our conclusion that one of those boundaries has been breached here. Legal Associations State v. Mangum, 214 Ariz. 165, 6, 150 P.3d 252, 254 (App.2007); State v. Kuntz, 209 Ariz. 276, 5, 100 P.3d 26, 28 (App.2004) (Whether the trial court properly applied 133821(A) is a question of law that we review de novo.). The trial court summarily denied Navarro's motion to suppress this evidence and, in January 2016, entered the judgment and sentence. Web, 513 F.2d 140, 146 (9th Cir. WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. VietnameseWelsh See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. 3. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. In the presentence report, a probation officer informed the trial court of Espinoza's adjudication of delinquency and added, A review of the Arizona Department of Public Safety records indicates the defendant never registered as a juvenile sex offender.. 2015), was controlling, adverse authority; the trial court thus declined his request for a suppression hearing. Again, Espinoza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment. Cf. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Under the rule, [t]he court must exclude from a criminal trial any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and article 2, section 8, unless the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. State v. Peoples, ___ Ariz. ___, 9, 378 P.3d 421, 424 (2016). Arizona Revised Statutes Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 1 The minor in this appeal fired four shots into the air in a residential neighborhood located in Pima County, Arizona. The email address cannot be subscribed. 26 The above reasoning leads us to two pertinent conclusions. Section 8202, A.R.S., which is entitled Jurisdiction of juvenile court, provides in pertinent part as follows: A. Around 2:00 p.m., he gave another Mirandized statement to police. 28 Apparently relying on the information in the presentence report, the prosecutor argued Espinoza would not succeed on probation, in part, because he had failed to comply with a duty to register. We therefore agree with the trial court that the superior court judge who presided over Espinoza's adult criminal damage conviction and sentencing proceedings, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the order requiring Espinoza to register as a sex offender. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. NorwegianPersian 34 When we encounter questions of subject matter jurisdiction raised for the first time long after a judgment has been entered, we enter an arena of the law where the competing values of validity and finality in judgments come into inevitable conflict. 33 Accordingly, neither the trial court's original order compelling Espinoza to register as a sex offender nor Espinoza's two subsequent felony convictions for failing to abide by that order, support the indictment in the instant case. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. We may affirm the court's ruling if it is legally correct for any reason. CatalanChinese (Simplified) The email address cannot be subscribed. hbbd``b`$ jD0OcDd7 HLH<1f`bd2r?O % 2 CA-CR 2019-0128 Decided: January 15, 2021 Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. ThaiTurkish Corp. v. City of Broken Arrow, 766 P.2d 344, 348 (Okla.1988). endstream endobj startxref Espinoza, No. AfrikaansAlbanian After a hearing, the juvenile See 8202(G) (jurisdiction of juvenile court retained only until child becomes eighteen years of age); see also In re Maricopa Cnty. The appeals process is generally the same for both civil and criminal cases. Although that statute sets forth the circumstances under which a person may be required to register as a sex offender, it does not purport to address the jurisdiction of a superior court to hear and determine a particular type of case. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 14, 223 P.3d at 655. 2. 1 Following a jury trial, appellant Javier Navarro was convicted of four counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). G. Except as otherwise provided by law, jurisdiction of a child that is obtained by the juvenile court in a proceeding under this chapter shall be retained by it, for the purposes of implementing the orders made and filed in that proceeding, until the child becomes eighteen years of age, unless terminated by order of the court before the child's eighteenth birthday. 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). Upon hearing the erroneous admonition that he was required by law to submit to blood or breath testing, Navarro agreed to submit to a breath test. a (1982) (The authority of courts derives from constitutional provisions or from statutory provisions adopted in the exercise of a legislative authority, express or implied, to establish courts and to provide for their jurisdiction.); Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 14, 223 P.3d at 655 ( [S]ubject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.). That judgment was therefore obtained in violation of article II, 30 of the Arizona Constitution, a provision that expressly bars felony prosecutions in the absence of an indictment or information. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. See Ariz. R.Crim. See 239 Ariz. 299, 2, 371 P.3d at 629. SlovenianSpanish 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. 8202(H)(1) and (2). H. Persons who are under eighteen years of age shall be prosecuted in the same manner as adults if either: 1. Having been advised by both the probation officer and the prosecutor that Espinoza had failed to comply with a pre-existing duty to register as a sex offender, the trial court adopted that assumption. Criminal damage neither is listed among the offenses that trigger potential sex offender registration nor was any evidence presented suggesting that Espinoza had committed the offense for sexual gratification. We affirm for the reasons that follow. In context, these notations conveyed the probation officer's erroneous assumption that Espinoza had a duty to so register because of that adjudication. Contact us. 15 We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss criminal charges for an abuse of discretion, but we review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Espinoza pleaded guilty to criminal damage. The trial court in the instant case did not err in finding the original order void or in concluding Espinoza not only has no duty to register as a sex offender in the future, but never has had such a duty.
San Diego County Zoning Ordinance,
Retirement Flats For Sale Edinburgh Espc,
Kesik Surname Origin,
Where To Shoot An Alligator With A Bow,
Articles A