2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. BRANDON STEPHEN LOPEZ, Petitioner. So characterized, it would be merely a procedural error in the context of the court's appropriate jurisdictional authority to resolve an adult felony matter. We may affirm the court's ruling if it is legally correct for any reason. Chinese (Traditional)Croatian At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126, 2, 263 P.3d 675, 676 (App. WebCourt of Appeals. 21 In Maldonado, the trial court had erroneously entered a judgment of guilt against a defendant who had never been properly charged. H. Persons who are under eighteen years of age shall be prosecuted in the same manner as adults if either: 1. 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. WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 27 The record before us suggests the trial court believed its authority to order Espinoza to register as a sex offender arose not from his conviction for criminal damage but rather from Espinoza's prior juvenile adjudication for a sex offense. All Rights Reserved. ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO 1. BelarusianBulgarian 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). 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. 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. Court of Appeals 8 For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. HindiHungarian 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. STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANGEL NOLAND, JR. :: 2023 :: Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1921, 223 P.3d at 657. See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298, 896 P.2d 830, 838 (1995) ( Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.). 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. The appeals process is generally the same for both civil and criminal cases. 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. Court of Appeals - Arizona Judicial Branch WebClerk of the Court: Garye L. Vasquez (520) 628-6949: Chief Judge: Christopher P. Staring (520) 628-6947: Vice Chief Judge: Sean E. Brearcliffe (520) 628-6958: Judge: Peter J. 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. 17 In addition to the registration mandated upon conviction for one of the offenses identified in 133821(A), a sentencing court may, in its discretion, require lifelong, sex offender registration of a defendant convicted of any sexual offense or child sexual exploitation offense found in chapter 14 or 35.1 of title 13, or of any offense which, pursuant to A.R.S. 309 0 obj <> endobj IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS - cases.justia.com 2. Azerbaijani ALPHABasque ALPHA FinnishFrench P., to challenge the terms of his probation. e, 12 cmt. UkrainianUrdu ALPHA Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. 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. ARIZONA Action No. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. LithuanianMacedonian 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). Volunteer-AmeriCorps, Helpful Links 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. 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). hUmo0+}@~KDx)-RM(\h$HPnI(EVmq#R~R( 4%HSDHHHNb 0xbJHfTG}4LaVmf7,-qvE1k:m-xtSgCGU;~q:0+QC[uWt6 Commission on Judicial Conduct E.V., a minor under 18 years of age, Petitioner, v. Hon. 24 Applying those principles to the case before us, we must conclude that, when the superior court issued the 2004 order, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Espinoza's juvenile adjudication for attempted child molestation in either its juvenileor adult-court capacity. The juvenile is charged as an adult with an offense listed in 13501. 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. Staff Login, Translate this Page: 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. WebIt has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has jurisdiction in all matters properly appealed from superior court; and. 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. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). See Ariz. R.Crim. 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. WebThe court and its employees are not liable for any inaccurate or untimely information, or for misinterpretation or misuse of the data. 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. 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. WebCourt Name: Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two: Court Type: Court of Appeal: Address: 350 McAllister Street Room 1295, San Francisco, CA 94102: Phone: 520-628 Cf. IrishItalian Court of Appeals 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. 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.). Haitian Creole ALPHAHebrew No. 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. 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. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 2 CA in the second example means 2 CACR 20110214. 5 After Espinoza echoed his attorney's comments, the trial court asked, Are you sure? [Y]ou know, you were supposed to register? This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 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. 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. El Centro de Autoservicio, Contact Us 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). See A.R.S. 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. State v. Espinoza, No. 0 hbbd``b`$ jD0OcDd7 HLH<1f`bd2r?O % Espinoza pleaded guilty to criminal damage. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 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. Unaware of that error, Espinoza did not file a timely, of-right petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R.Crim. AZ Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw Although 133821 is silent on the question of whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the 2004 order, the legislature has not been similarly mute on the nature of a superior court's subject matter jurisdiction over matters of juvenile delinquency. Arizona Court of Appeals 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.
What Do These Words Have In Common Solver,
Syosset High School Staff Directory,
Articles A