arizona court of appeals, division 2

Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. No. 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. Espinoza's counsel requested directions from the court concerning what Espinoza was required to do on probation. 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. 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. WebArizona Court of Appeals. Contact us. AfrikaansAlbanian No. WebJustia US Law Case Law Arizona Case Law Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One - Unpublished Opinions Decisions 2023 GOMEZ POOLS v. ARIZONA REGISTRAR GOMEZ POOLS v. ARIZONA REGISTRAR Annotate this Case Download PDF of 7 Terms of Service apply. 30 Given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. The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and 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 Section 8202, A.R.S., which is entitled Jurisdiction of juvenile court, provides in pertinent part as follows: A. We did so, however, without identifying which of the several potential jurisdictional arguments we were resolving. You may contact the Clerk of the Court at (520) 628-6954. 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. Web, 513 F.2d 140, 146 (9th Cir. endstream endobj startxref SlovenianSpanish No. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. A resident of Arizona and admitted to the practice of law in Arizona for the five years immediately prior to taking office. UkrainianUrdu ALPHA 13118, the state has alleged, and the trier of fact has found, was committed for the purpose of sexual gratification. See Ariz. R.Crim. 4 At the sentencing hearing in March 2004, the state urged the trial court to sentence Espinoza to a presumptive term of imprisonment. 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. Staff Login, Translate this Page: 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. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 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. Please try again. (There are filing fees in civil cases, but not for criminal cases.). The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. During oral argument before us, the State advised that its motion to admit defendant's statements was pending before the trial court. SerbianSlovak Again, Espinoza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment. 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. 12-120.09. 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. The official case record is maintained at the 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.). See 239 Ariz. 299, 2, 371 P.3d at 629. No. The Arizona Court of Appeals was established in 1965 and is the intermediate appellate court for the state. 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. 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. NorwegianPersian A clerk of the court maintains official records and case files and handles the administrative duties of the court. 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. And, the trial court had no other information before it suggesting any other basis for ordering him to register as a sex offender. 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. WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 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. 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. %%EOF 133822 and 133824. 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. 2 CACR 20110214. 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 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. SwahiliSwedish 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. 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. \*+JIVM EstonianFilipino Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. Cf. 28-1383(D), followed by concurrent five-year terms of probation. Volunteer-FCRB The email address cannot be subscribed. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1618, 223 P.3d at 65556; Restatement 11 cmt. 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. Arizona has two appellate courts: the court of appeals is the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. 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. 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. 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. And I have talked about it. 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 E.V., a minor under 18 years of age, Petitioner, v. Hon. 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. Their duties are outlined in A.R.S. 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. 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. Legal Reference & Links The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1921, 223 P.3d at 657. See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. Career Opportunities WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126, 2, 263 P.3d 675, 676 (App. 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. Contact us. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANGEL NOLAND JR., Appellant. No. State v. Espinoza, No. 12, 962 P.2d 224, quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 31 (1994);7 accord Valley Vista Dev. 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. 1984). GermanGreek 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. 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. All rights reserved. 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). 1. 133821, persons convicted of specifically enumerated offenses are required to register as sex offenders in Arizona. 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. Arizona Revised Statutes LithuanianMacedonian And I have followed through. We assume trial courts know the law in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See 8202(G) (jurisdiction of juvenile court retained only until child becomes eighteen years of age); see also In re Maricopa Cnty. But true jurisdictional limitations on a court's authority remain and it is our conclusion that one of those boundaries has been breached here. 13501 or those offenses wherein jurisdiction has been specifically transferred pursuant to the criteria set forth in A.R.S. 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. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. NOT FOR PUBLICATION 133821(D). 2 CA in the second example means 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. RomanianRussian It appears he was charged once again with failing to register in July 2008, shortly after his release from prison for the 2004 offense. Division I; Division II; Superior Court; Justice Courts; City Courts; News & Info; Our Courts AZ; Guide to AZ Courts; Committees & Commissions. No. 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. WebCourt of Appeals. 2 CA-CR 2016-0020 As %PDF-1.7 % It has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). 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. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Please try again. And you failed to do that, sir; do you understand that? Espinoza responded, Yes. 8202(A). Although our implied consent statute, A.R.S. 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. His attorneys failed to challenge either of these convictions in timely, of-right petitions for postconviction relief. MalayMaltese 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). The state does not dispute that the juvenile court never ordered Espinoza to register as a sex offender. 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. 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. Espinoza's convictions in 2004 and 2008 for failing to register as a sex offender were founded entirely on Espinoza's violation of the void 2004 criminal damage probation order; therefore, those convictions are likewise invalid and ineffective for any purpose . Cramer, 192 Ariz. 150, 16, 962 P.2d at 227, quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 31.8. 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. 3. 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. Self-Service Center 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. 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. 309 0 obj <> endobj IrishItalian WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. 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 State v. Espinoza, 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. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. 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.). 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. 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. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. 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. 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. We affirm for the reasons that follow. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. 11 In March 2011, Espinoza again was indicted for violating the requirements of sexual offender registration. Volunteer-CASA Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 2 CACR 20100114PR, 45. See A.R.S. WebCourt of Appeals. 339 0 obj <>stream 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. D20201560 The Honorable We agree and therefore affirm the trial court's ruling. 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. 16 Pursuant to A.R.S. 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). 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. 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. 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. IcelandicIndonesian Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 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.. 21 In Maldonado, the trial court had erroneously entered a judgment of guilt against a defendant who had never been properly charged.

Examples Of Non Ferromagnesian Silicate Minerals, Articles A