8 For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 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. Because this distinct legal question is not properly before us, we do not address it. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. 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. This appeal followed. 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. No. 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. We agree and therefore affirm the trial court's ruling. Accordingly, in analyzing whether a court has exceeded its jurisdiction, we are instructed to distinguish between those constitutional or statutory provisions that expressly set forth or limit the jurisdiction of a courtfrom those that merely direct how that jurisdiction should be exercised. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 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. 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. 309 0 obj <> endobj 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. 21 In Maldonado, the trial court had erroneously entered a judgment of guilt against a defendant who had never been properly charged. NOT FOR PUBLICATION Division I; Division II; Superior Court; Justice Courts; City Courts; News & Info; Our Courts AZ; Guide to AZ Courts; Committees & Commissions. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. WebWelcome to the Arizona Appellate Court Case website. 2 CA-CR 2016-0020 As 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. 28-1383(D), followed by concurrent five-year terms of probation. Self-Service Center 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. Site Map National Center for State Courts 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, CONCURRING: JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge and J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge. FinnishFrench 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. All rights reserved. Careers WebIt has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). 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. 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. Human Resources, Volunteer 2 CA-CV 2022-0083-FC Filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. 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. No. That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 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. 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. 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. Latin ALPHALatvian 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 . 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. Espinoza's counsel requested directions from the court concerning what Espinoza was required to do on probation. LithuanianMacedonian GermanGreek CzechDanish 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. Around 2:00 p.m., he gave another Mirandized statement to police. WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. 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). The court of appeals: hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has 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. See Ariz. R.Crim. 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. See A.R.S. They said that I have to do that, and I told him I got atforgot where I had to do that. The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. The trial court summarily denied Navarro's motion to suppress this evidence and, in January 2016, entered the judgment and sentence. The official case record is maintained at the WebCourt of Appeals. 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. 133821(J), 133822(A), 133824. No. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO, Appellant. 2 CACR 20100114PR (memorandum decision filed July 9, 2010). WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 14, 223 P.3d 653. 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). And I have followed through. 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). 133821(C). 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. 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. 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. 29 At the same time, nothing in the record supports that the trial court believed the criminal damage conviction authorized it to impose on Espinoza any threshold duty to register. 223 Ariz. 309, 1011, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 12-120.09. 339 0 obj <>stream 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. NorwegianPersian See Ariz. R.Crim. 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. At Espinoza's urging, the court further found he does not have to register as a sex offender in the future.. Action No. The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. No. No. 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. 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. 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 HindiHungarian 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. 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. 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. This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. SlovenianSpanish All rights reserved. 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 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. The results revealed that his blood alcohol concentration was above 0.15. Contact us. After a hearing, the juvenile Volunteer-CASA That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. 3. 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. 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. 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. endstream endobj startxref 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). 1984). 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. [emailprotected] Your Service Although our implied consent statute, A.R.S. IcelandicIndonesian 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). Commission on Judicial Conduct UkrainianUrdu ALPHA See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1618, 223 P.3d at 65556; Restatement 11 cmt. 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. 2 We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal. 2. 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).
What Happened To The Blonde Girl On Tmz,
How Did Raistlin Defeat Takhisis,
Wisconsin Ppp Loan Recipients List 2021,
Yankees Hair Policy Racist,
Articles A