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. Volunteer-FCRB A clerk of the court maintains official records and case files and handles the administrative duties of the court. endstream endobj 310 0 obj <>/Metadata 76 0 R/Pages 307 0 R/StructTreeRoot 112 0 R/Type/Catalog/ViewerPreferences 324 0 R>> endobj 311 0 obj <>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]/Parent 307 0 R/Resources<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI]>>/Rotate 0/StructParents 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page>> endobj 312 0 obj <>stream The juvenile is charged as an adult with an offense listed in 13501. OPINION. 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. ARIZONA Contact us. 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. Court of Appeals 2 CACR 20110214. ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184. 16 Pursuant to A.R.S. 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. See 8202(H) (itemizing subject matter over which adult court secures jurisdiction of offense committed by juvenile). Court of Appeals 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). 21 In Maldonado, the trial court had erroneously entered a judgment of guilt against a defendant who had never been properly charged. Web(206) 309-5013 Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, Juvenile Law Kirk Bernard PREMIUM (206) 298-9900 Seattle, WA Personal Injury, Business Law Laurie G. Robertson PREMIUM (844) 923-2645 Seattle, WA Divorce, Estate Planning, Family Law Carrie Fulton-Brown PREMIUM (206) 309-5013 Seattle, WA HindiHungarian 13 On this appeal from the trial court's dismissal order, the state argues the court abused its discretion in dismissing the indictment because Espinoza is required to register as a sex offender based on the probation terms imposed in connection with the criminal damage conviction and the convictions for registration violations in 2004 and 2008. Privacy Notice WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANGEL NOLAND JR., Appellant. It provides: No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.. 13118, the state has alleged, and the trier of fact has found, was committed for the purpose of sexual gratification. 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. 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 H. Persons who are under eighteen years of age shall be prosecuted in the same manner as adults if either: 1. 12 After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding the Juvenile Court never ordered the defendant to register as a sex offender and [the] Superior Court then did not have jurisdiction to order that the defendant register as a sex offender in the 2004 criminal damage probation order, because such a requirement was a matter only to be determined by the Juvenile Court. Having concluded the superior court had been without jurisdiction to order Espinoza to register as a condition of his probation, the court further found that order void and dismissed the indictment against Espinoza with prejudice. 2 We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal. 23 That conclusion, however, does not end our inquiry. In his reply brief, Navarro countered that article II, 8 of our state constitution can be interpreted to afford Arizona citizens more rights than the federal counterpart. We need not decide whether Navarro properly raised this state constitutional claim because we find no error in the trial court's refusal to suppress the evidence. El Centro de Autoservicio, Contact Us WebCourt of Appeals. Corp. v. City of Broken Arrow, 766 P.2d 344, 348 (Okla.1988). 133822 and 133824. That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. Yet, our supreme court held the court had not exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction in entering the judgment because article II, 30 did not by its terms address jurisdiction and because article VI, 14(4) of the Arizona Constitution specifically provides superior courts subject matter jurisdiction over felony criminal matters. 2 CA-CV 2022-0083-FC Filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS - cases.justia.com 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, At that time, a police officer read Navarro the same admin per se form that our supreme court later held to be invalid in Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, 5, 22, 28, 371 P.3d at 629-30, 634, 636. AZ Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. IcelandicIndonesian 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. State v. Espinoza, No. 3. Division Two Court Appeals - AzCourtHelp The state does not dispute that the juvenile court never ordered Espinoza to register as a sex offender. The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. 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. Self-Service Center Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. ThaiTurkish See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126, 2, 263 P.3d 675, 676 (App. The trial court summarily denied Navarro's motion to suppress this evidence and, in January 2016, entered the judgment and sentence. Interpreters 8202(A). FinnishFrench WebCourt of Appeals. As an intermediate appellate court, we cannot disaffirm a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court on a matter under our state constitution, even if we believe the decision should be revisited. e, 12 cmt. No. 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. -- Select language -- Our highest court concluded in Bergmuch like the Supreme Court did in Birchfield, ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184 that requiring a DUI arrestee to exhale into a testing device is a slight inconvenience that represents a burden which such defendant must bear for the common interest. Berg, 76 Ariz. at 103, 259 P.2d at 266; accord Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 547, 479 P.2d 685, 690 (1971). State v. Aguilar, 218 Ariz. 25, 22, 178 P.3d 497, 503 (App.2008); see also State v. Caez, 202 Ariz. 133, 51, 42 P.3d 564, 582 (2002) ([W]e are obliged to uphold the trial court's ruling if legally correct for any reason.); State v. Wills, 177 Ariz. 592, 594, 870 P.2d 410, 412 (App.1993) (reviewing court may affirm summary dismissal with prejudice when record demonstrably require[s] it). WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. Examples: 1 CA-CV 95-0587; 2 CA-SA 89-338; 1 CA in the first example means Court of Appeals, Division 1 (Phoenix). See State v. Payne, 223 Ariz. 555, 10, 223 P.3d 1131, 1136 (App.2009) (test of jurisdiction whether tribunal has power to enter upon inquiry, not whether conclusion of inquiry correct). National Center for State Courts 133821(A) that trigger a duty to register as a sex offender, 133821(A)(19) also imposes a duty to register if a defendant is convicted of violating the registration procedures set forth in A.R.S. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See 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. 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. 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.. 1 In this appeal, the state challenges the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice the indictment against appellee Jaime Espinoza for failure to register as a sex offender. Espinoza, No. Arizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 - AzCourtHelp 2 CA in the second example means WebARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and CHRISTOPHER MANDEL, Respondent/Appellee. 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. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS - cases.justia.com No. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF 2 CA-CR 2016-0020 As All rights reserved. Arizona Court of Appeals Legal Reference & Links CORP Website Like Arizonas appellate courts, a federal court of appeals will not set aside the district courts exercise of discretion unless it is 4 Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, suppression was not required here because, as Birchfield held, a warrantless breath test is allowed as a search incident to a lawful DUI arrest. 223 Ariz. 309, 1011, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. Each division of the court of appeals has a clerk of the court and other support personnel. 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 MalayMaltese 19 In analyzing the 2004 order, we are mindful that not all legal errors are jurisdictional errors and that Arizona courts have, on occasion, conflated the two. It lacked jurisdiction over the juvenile adjudication in its juvenile capacity because Espinoza had surpassed the age of eighteen. 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. 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. By the terms of that jurisdiction-defining statute, the adult divisions of the superior court only acquire jurisdiction over those acts committed by a juvenile that are charged as offenses listed in A.R.S. This appeal followed. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Because no hearing was held in this case, we draw our facts from the uncontested material appended to Navarro's suppression motion as well as the evidence presented at trial. No. In short, the court, counsel for the state, and counsel for Espinoza all erroneously relied on the probation officer's inaccurate assumption that the juvenile court previously had imposed on Espinoza a duty to register as a sex offender. 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. STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS :: 2023 Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 2, Department A. See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. 22 For this reason, we must reject Espinoza's specific contention that the trial court in 2004 acted in excess of its subject matter jurisdiction merely because that court erroneously imposed upon him a duty to register as a sex offender in contravention of statute, specifically 133821. hbbd``b`$ jD0OcDd7 HLH<1f`bd2r?O % 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. 133821(A)(1)(18), (20)-(21).2. SwahiliSwedish 8327. And I have followed through. The juvenile court deferred a determination of whether Espinoza would be required to register as a sex offender and struck language requiring registration from the conditions of his probation, stating, If the minor successfully completes probation, he will not be required to register as a sex offender. However, the court did not state that it would necessarily order him to so register if he failed on probation. See State v. Diaz, 223 Ariz. 358, 11, 224 P.3d 174, 176-77 (2010) (stating appellant must first establish error under any standard of appellate review). Contact us. 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. Those consequences were set forth by a juvenile court more than six years earlier and no longer could be modified after Espinoza's eighteenth birthday in March 2002. P. 32.4(a) (first notice of post-conviction relief in of-right proceeding must be filed within ninety days after the entry of judgment and sentence). BelarusianBulgarian 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. ARIZONA The Arizona Court of Appeals was established in 1965 and is the intermediate appellate court for the state. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. 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). 13501 or those offenses wherein jurisdiction has been specifically transferred pursuant to the criteria set forth in A.R.S. bs%0c{^L4-\A Y 31 The court's dismissal was based on its conclusion that the superior court had lacked jurisdiction when, in 2004, it ordered Espinoza to register as a condition of his probation and that the order therefore was void. 2 CACR 20100114PR, 45. Staff Login, Translate this Page: No. RomanianRussian 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.). Please try again. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). 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. This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. CzechDanish 8202(H)(1) and (2). 30 Given our review of the record, we must conclude the state was correct when it conceded during oral argument that the trial court believed it was building on something that had already occurred in juvenile court and that the court thought it was dealing with the juvenile matter when it issued the order. We therefore further conclude the court believed its authority to order Espinoza to register as a sex offender arose from his juvenile adjudication. (There are filing fees in civil cases, but not for criminal cases.). The court of appeals: hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has And, the trial court had no other information before it suggesting any other basis for ordering him to register as a sex offender. 339 0 obj <>stream Decided: April 30, 2012 Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant. 2 CA-CR 2022-0134 Filed April 28, 2023 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. 12-120.09. We agree and therefore affirm the trial court's ruling. 4 At the sentencing hearing in March 2004, the state urged the trial court to sentence Espinoza to a presumptive term of imprisonment. Our supreme court denied further review. That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox! No. See State v. Chacon, 221 Ariz. 523, 5, 212 P.3d 861, 86364 (App.2009) (order or judgment void if issuing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; challenge to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and can never be forfeited or waived ), quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S.Ct. As the state points out, in addition to substantive offenses enumerated in A.R.S. 2 ca-cr 2022-0134 filed april 28, 2023 this decision does not create 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). GermanGreek At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Court Vacancies 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. UkrainianUrdu ALPHA Feedback See Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 231-32 (2011); State v. Bolt, 142 Ariz. 260, 267, 689 P.2d 519, 526 (1984). As the state concedes, Espinoza's 2004 conviction for criminal damage would not authorize a trial court, under any of these provisions, to order him to register as a sex offender. Career Opportunities Espinoza pleaded guilty to criminal damage. 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. 2011).1 Navarro was arrested for DUI on February 15, 2015. CT - Court of Appeals - Division II | AZ Direct - Arizona In short, the legislature has created a jurisdictional boundary, based primarily on the subject matter of the dispute (here, the type of offense), between a superior court acting in its capacity as a juvenile court and a superior court acting in its capacity as an adult court.3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION NorwegianPersian Site Map WebIt has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). Webin the arizona court of appeals division two the state of arizona, appellee, v. angel noland jr., appellant. JapaneseKorean hb```f``f`a`Qg`@ rL r b00v0010:1.a(%PQQV_LaBSENT(-Oz SC[|M@mL;4)t~ See A.R.S. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. Arizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 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. And I have talked about it. Shortly after noon, defendant was given his Miranda warnings and he gave a statement. 18 However, a superior court may require a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent for an act that would constitute an offense specified in either 133821(A) or (C) to register as a sex offender. 5 After Espinoza echoed his attorney's comments, the trial court asked, Are you sure? [Y]ou know, you were supposed to register? 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). Latin ALPHALatvian Arizona has two appellate courts: the court of appeals is the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. It has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). 9 Although the trial court's determination that Espinoza had failed to comply with Rule 32.2(b) provided a sufficient basis to deny relief, we also rejected Espinoza's argument that the 2004 criminal damage probation order was void ab initio. Arizona Court of Appeals - Ballotpedia This includes the court jurisdiction, process, FAQ, guides, resources, and a link to Arizona Briefs Collection | Ross-Blakley Law Library Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1921, 223 P.3d at 657. WebWelcome to the Arizona Appellate Court Case website. STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANGEL NOLAND, JR. :: 2023 :: This site serves as a portal to a variety of information including case dockets on active cases, recent court decisions hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has jurisdiction in all matters properly appealed from superior court; and. Please try again. DutchEnglish 7 Questions concerning the validity of Navarro's consent and the applicability of the good-faith exception are consequently irrelevant to the constitutional issue raised on appeal. Arizona Revised Statutes 2 CA-SA 2022-0024 Decided: July 01, 2022 WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. BRANDON STEPHEN LOPEZ, Petitioner. Because the warrantless breath test to which Navarro submitted did not violate any provision of the United States or Arizona Constitutions, according to our highest respective courts, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to this case.3. 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.. 28-1321(B), (D), normally prohibits law enforcement officers from collecting samples for chemical testing in the absence of either actual consent or a search warrant, Navarro has not developed any argument that a violation of this statute requires the suppression of evidence in a criminal trial. No. But true jurisdictional limitations on a court's authority remain and it is our conclusion that one of those boundaries has been breached here. S The court of appeals: Court of Appeals, Division One, has statewide responsibility for appeals from the Industrial Commission, unemployment compensation rulings of the Department of Economic Security, and rulings by the Tax Court.