Our supreme court denied further review. Arizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 - AzCourtHelp See 8202(H) (itemizing subject matter over which adult court secures jurisdiction of offense committed by juvenile). Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 2, Department A. 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). v. Myers, 184 Ariz. 98, 10102, 907 P.2d 67, 7071 (1995) (noting imprecise use of jurisdictional language in cases involving non-jurisdictional error). 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. 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. 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, 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. You may contact the Clerk of the Court at (520) 628-6954. 2011).1 Navarro was arrested for DUI on February 15, 2015. This appeal followed. 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. hbbd``b`$ jD0OcDd7 HLH<1f`bd2r?O % No. 21 In Maldonado, the trial court had erroneously entered a judgment of guilt against a defendant who had never been properly charged. Volunteer-FCRB Because this distinct legal question is not properly before us, we do not address it. The email address cannot be subscribed. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. SwahiliSwedish See 8202(G) (jurisdiction of juvenile court retained only until child becomes eighteen years of age); see also In re Maricopa Cnty. hUmo0+}@~KDx)-RM(\h$HPnI(EVmq#R~R( 4%HSDHHHNb 0xbJHfTG}4LaVmf7,-qvE1k:m-xtSgCGU;~q:0+QC[uWt6 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). This includes the court jurisdiction, process, FAQ, guides, resources, and a link to 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. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. 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. 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. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 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. 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. Volunteer-CASA 2. No. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002).1. 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. IcelandicIndonesian Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. ARIZONA IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS - cases.justia.com Privacy Notice ARIZONA Action No. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. 339 0 obj <>stream The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. You may contact the Clerk of the Court at (520) 628-6954. Division Two hears appeals from final decisions of the Superior Court in the counties of Pima, Pinal, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, Graham, and Gila. Court of Appeals Division One - Arizona WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox! EstonianFilipino 1 Following a jury trial, appellant Javier Navarro was convicted of four counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). National Center for State Courts 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). Legal Reference & Links 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). Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 4 At the sentencing hearing in March 2004, the state urged the trial court to sentence Espinoza to a presumptive term of imprisonment. 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). FinnishFrench WebCourt of Appeals. And I have talked about it. Legal Associations CT - Court of Appeals - Division II | AZ Direct - Arizona Yiddish BelarusianBulgarian The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to consider appeals in civil cases, including juvenile and domestic relations matters, from the Arizona Superior Court. The court also reviews workers compensation and unemployment benefits decisions, tax court decisions, and certain corporation commission decisions. We assume trial courts know the law in the absence of evidence to the contrary. IrishItalian IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS - cases.justia.com You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. A clerk of the court maintains official records and case files and handles the administrative duties of the court. 32 A void judgment is a nullity and all proceedings founded on [a] void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid and ineffective for any purpose. See id. It provides: No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.. 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. Commission on Judicial Conduct 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. 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, 2023 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 1990). 35 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the indictment against Espinoza. 309 0 obj <> endobj 26 The above reasoning leads us to two pertinent conclusions. Arizona Court of Appeals S In context, these notations conveyed the probation officer's erroneous assumption that Espinoza had a duty to so register because of that adjudication. 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.. You can explore additional available newsletters here. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). AfrikaansAlbanian Haitian Creole ALPHAHebrew 1975)). 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. no. Court Vacancies STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANGEL NOLAND, JR. :: 2023 :: 13118, the state has alleged, and the trier of fact has found, was committed for the purpose of sexual gratification. bs%0c{^L4-\A Y 31 That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. VietnameseWelsh 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. The sole issue Navarro raises on appeal is whether the results of his warrantless breath test should have been suppressed in light of State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, 371 P.3d 627 (2016). See Ariz. R.Crim. Human Resources, Volunteer 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. Chinese (Traditional)Croatian SlovenianSpanish 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. 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. Espinoza filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment with Prejudice as Insufficient as a Matter of Law, in which he argued he was never legally ordered to register as a sex offender by any court and therefore could not be found guilty of having failed to comply with registration requirements. Corp. v. City of Broken Arrow, 766 P.2d 344, 348 (Okla.1988). 1 CA-CR 22-0581 PRPC FILED 4-27-2023 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. 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. 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. No. 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. The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. WebCourt of Appeals. 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). This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. WebWelcome to the Arizona Appellate Court Case website. STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS :: 2023 ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184. 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. Examples: 1 CA-CV 95-0587; 2 CA-SA 89-338; 1 CA in the first example means Court of Appeals, Division 1 (Phoenix). NOT FOR PUBLICATION Shortly after noon, defendant was given his Miranda warnings and he gave a statement. HindiHungarian The Arizona Court of Appeals is the intermediate appellate court for the state of Arizona. It is divided into two divisions, with a total of twenty-eight judges on the court: nineteen in Division 1, based in Phoenix, and nine in Division 2, based in Tucson . 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. [emailprotected] Your Service It lacked jurisdiction over the juvenile adjudication in its juvenile capacity because Espinoza had surpassed the age of eighteen. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO, Appellant. That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. Espinoza, No. Cf. His attorneys failed to challenge either of these convictions in timely, of-right petitions for postconviction relief. Please try again. State v. Espinoza, No. *. 6 In August 2004, based on the erroneous trial court order, Espinoza was charged with failing to register as a sex offender and, after pleading guilty, was sentenced to a prison term of 2.5 years. Espinoza's counsel asked the court to give his client one more chance to follow through, suggesting, Perhaps if you give him one shot at probation [and] give him directions he would be motivated to succeed. D20201560 The Honorable See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. In February 1997, then twelve-year-old Espinoza was adjudicated delinquent for attempted molestation of a child and other charges and placed on juvenile intensive probation for twelve months. Like Arizonas appellate courts, a federal court of appeals will not set aside the district courts exercise of discretion unless it is 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. 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. It verbalized skepticism about Espinoza's assertion that he would be a good candidate for probation, specifically noting he was supposed to register and had failed to do so. Careers The court of appeals: hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has e, 12 cmt. %PDF-1.7 % Espinoza pleaded guilty to criminal damage. 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. 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. At Espinoza's urging, the court further found he does not have to register as a sex offender in the future.. 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 And, the trial court had no other information before it suggesting any other basis for ordering him to register as a sex offender. 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. 12-120.09. %%EOF 2015), was controlling, adverse authority; the trial court thus declined his request for a suppression hearing. The official case record is maintained at the Home [apps.supremecourt.az.gov] You're all set! hb```f``f`a`Qg`@ rL r b00v0010:1.a(%PQQV_LaBSENT(-Oz SC[|M@mL;4)t~ 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. 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. 8202(A). We affirm for the reasons that follow. 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. Again, Espinoza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment. 5 These precedents foreclose the argument that article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution provides greater privacy protection than the federal constitution with regard to DUI breath testing. 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. It is divided into two divisions, with a total 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. H. Persons who are under eighteen years of age shall be prosecuted in the same manner as adults if either: 1. And, as noted above, the court and the parties could not have been referring to the criminal damage offense as the trigger for Espinoza's duty to register because each clearly believed that any such duty pre-existed the sentence pronouncement for the adult felony conviction. 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. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 11 cmt. LithuanianMacedonian No. It appears he was charged once again with failing to register in July 2008, shortly after his release from prison for the 2004 offense. This site serves as a portal to a variety of information including case dockets on active cases, recent court decisions 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 Arizona Court of Appeals Feedback This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. 1984). 5 After Espinoza echoed his attorney's comments, the trial court asked, Are you sure? [Y]ou know, you were supposed to register? 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). 1. GermanGreek Interpreters Espinoza's counsel requested directions from the court concerning what Espinoza was required to do on probation. Career Opportunities 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. 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. The presentence report prepared for Espinoza's sentencing listed his prior adjudication for sexually molesting his younger half-sister, as reported by Espinoza, and noted that he had failed to register as a sex offender with the Arizona Department of Public Safety.