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. 8327. 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. See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. Powered by, Justicia para el Futuro: Planificar Para Lograr la Excelencia. 26 The above reasoning leads us to two pertinent conclusions. Arizona Court of Appeals 14, 223 P.3d 653. Corp. v. City of Broken Arrow, 766 P.2d 344, 348 (Okla.1988). 2 We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal. 133821(J), 133822(A), 133824. 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 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. *. No. 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. BelarusianBulgarian 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. During oral argument before us, the State advised that its motion to admit defendant's statements was pending before the trial court. 8202(H)(1) and (2). OPINION. 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). 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. All rights reserved. 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. Feedback No. This site serves as a portal to a variety of information including case dockets on active cases, recent court decisions CONCURRING: JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge and J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge. All Rights Reserved. Again, Espinoza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment. 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). At Espinoza's urging, the court further found he does not have to register as a sex offender in the future.. 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. Self-Service Center 5 After Espinoza echoed his attorney's comments, the trial court asked, Are you sure? [Y]ou know, you were supposed to register? You're all set! That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. The juvenile court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency proceedings brought under the authority of this title. 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. 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. Section 8202, A.R.S., which is entitled Jurisdiction of juvenile court, provides in pertinent part as follows: A. ARIZONA %%EOF AfrikaansAlbanian 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. 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. SlovenianSpanish Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 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. The state does not dispute that the juvenile court never ordered Espinoza to register as a sex offender. 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. hbbd``b`$ jD0OcDd7 HLH<1f`bd2r?O % 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. No. 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. It is mere happenstance that the breach occurred in an individual case where the equities of finality and validity weigh so heavily in favor of voiding the judgment. 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). 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 Action No. 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. All rights reserved. STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS :: 2023 Azerbaijani ALPHABasque ALPHA See Ariz. R.Crim. 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). 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. 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. In context, these notations conveyed the probation officer's erroneous assumption that Espinoza had a duty to so register because of that adjudication. Unaware of that error, Espinoza did not file a timely, of-right petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R.Crim. 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. D20201560 The Honorable 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). 1975)). 2011).1 Navarro was arrested for DUI on February 15, 2015. 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. VietnameseWelsh 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). UkrainianUrdu ALPHA WebCourt of Appeals. Arizona Revised Statutes 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. hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has jurisdiction in all matters properly appealed from superior court; and. It is divided into two divisions, with a total 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. 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.). Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 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. No. Contact us. Please try again. 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. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See The official case record is maintained at the P., to challenge the terms of his probation. El Centro de Autoservicio, Contact Us 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 1. 23 That conclusion, however, does not end our inquiry. 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. 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. 13118, the state has alleged, and the trier of fact has found, was committed for the purpose of sexual gratification. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. IcelandicIndonesian The juvenile is charged as an adult with an offense listed in 13501. It lacked jurisdiction over the juvenile adjudication in its juvenile capacity because Espinoza had surpassed the age of eighteen. 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. Arizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 MalayMaltese NorwegianPersian ArabicArmenian ALPHA SwahiliSwedish The trial court found his claim precluded and, on review, we also denied relief. We agree and therefore affirm the trial court's ruling. We may affirm the court's ruling if it is legally correct for any reason. 1 The minor in this appeal fired four shots into the air in a residential neighborhood located in Pima County, Arizona. No. We assume trial courts know the law in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 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 20 In determining whether a challenge to a court's power to act on a specific matter sounds as a jurisdictional question, we begin with the premise that our respective state courts have no threshold jurisdiction to hear and determine any type of case unless expressly authorized to do so by Arizona's constitution or by statute. 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. 2 CACR 20100114PR (memorandum decision filed July 9, 2010). 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. 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. Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox! FinnishFrench Home [apps.supremecourt.az.gov] WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. 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). 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 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002).1. Like Arizonas appellate courts, a federal court of appeals will not set aside the district courts exercise of discretion unless it is No. Site Map The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. To the extent the 2004 order can be characterized as arising from the trial court's authority to impose sanctions upon Espinoza for his adult conviction for criminal damage, that orderhowever erroneous under 133821would not have been issued in excess of the court's jurisdiction. WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. Latin ALPHALatvian Our supreme court denied further review. -- Select language -- 1984). 8 For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. CzechDanish 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). 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. This appeal followed. NOT FOR PUBLICATION CORP Website Careers STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANGEL NOLAND, JR. :: 2023 :: GermanGreek 12, 962 P.2d 224, quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 31 (1994);7 accord Valley Vista Dev. State v. Espinoza, No. 12-120.09. 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. 2 CA in the second example means Because this distinct legal question is not properly before us, we do not address it. But true jurisdictional limitations on a court's authority remain and it is our conclusion that one of those boundaries has been breached here. But, as our supreme court has explained, this does not mean all judgments or orders in violation of either our state's constitution or statutory provisions implicate the jurisdiction of the court to issue them. 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. WebArizona Court of Appeals. And I have talked about it. We affirm for the reasons that follow. 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. 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. State v. Espinoza, No. GalicianGeorgian ALPHA A resident of Arizona and admitted to the practice of law in Arizona for the five years immediately prior to taking office. Privacy Notice State Bar of Arizona S Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1921, 223 P.3d at 657. WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 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. 339 0 obj <>stream 133822 and 133824. 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. 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. ThaiTurkish 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. 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 . 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). 133821, persons convicted of specifically enumerated offenses are required to register as sex offenders in Arizona. See A.R.S. 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.. Arizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 - AzCourtHelp CT - Court of Appeals - Division II | AZ Direct - Arizona At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. %PDF-1.7 % Division I; Division II; Superior Court; Justice Courts; City Courts; News & Info; Our Courts AZ; Guide to AZ Courts; Committees & Commissions. CR 2012-125141-002 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF Appeals - Division Two of Arizona Court of Appeals - AzCourtHelp Decided: April 30, 2012 Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant. Court of Appeals 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. ARIZONA IrishItalian Shortly after noon, defendant was given his Miranda warnings and he gave a statement. Volunteer-CASA The email address cannot be subscribed. 133821(D). 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. 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 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). 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. v. Myers, 184 Ariz. 98, 10102, 907 P.2d 67, 7071 (1995) (noting imprecise use of jurisdictional language in cases involving non-jurisdictional error). 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. 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. 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. The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. BRANDON STEPHEN LOPEZ, Petitioner. A clerk of the court maintains official records and case files and handles the administrative duties of the court. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO, Appellant. 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. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 1990). After a hearing, the juvenile 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. Cf. Legal Reference & Links For the most part, the offenses specified involve kidnapping or unlawful restraint of a minor and certain sexual offenses found in chapters 13, 14, 32, and 35.1 of title 13 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Court Vacancies Arizona Court of Appeals - Ballotpedia
Shaker Heights High School Fight,
Robert Louis Stevenson School San Francisco,
Stockton Unified School District Calendar,
Gail Engvall Net Worth,
Articles A