We did so, however, without identifying which of the several potential jurisdictional arguments we were resolving. 21 In Maldonado, the trial court had erroneously entered a judgment of guilt against a defendant who had never been properly charged. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 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. We affirm for the reasons that follow. %PDF-1.7 % 0 VietnameseWelsh 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). 4 At the sentencing hearing in March 2004, the state urged the trial court to sentence Espinoza to a presumptive term of imprisonment. 8327. 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. 2 ca-cr 2022-0134 filed april 28, 2023 this decision does not create 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 IcelandicIndonesian IrishItalian 11 In March 2011, Espinoza again was indicted for violating the requirements of sexual offender registration. That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. Unaware of that error, Espinoza did not file a timely, of-right petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R.Crim. As the state points out, in addition to substantive offenses enumerated in A.R.S. Each division of the court of appeals has a clerk of the court and other support personnel. Arizona Revised Statutes 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. reviews all decisions properly appealed to it. 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. AfrikaansAlbanian 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. No. 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. Interpreters The juvenile court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency proceedings brought under the authority of this title. Careers 2 CA-CR 2016-0020 As 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. 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, WebCourt of Appeals. 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. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. BRANDON STEPHEN LOPEZ, Petitioner. 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. No. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. 5 After Espinoza echoed his attorney's comments, the trial court asked, Are you sure? [Y]ou know, you were supposed to register? Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. \*+JIVM The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. Legal Associations And I have talked about it. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of four months' incarceration, pursuant to A.R.S. 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. 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 133821(D). The official case record is maintained at the 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. Although our implied consent statute, A.R.S. (There are filing fees in civil cases, but not for criminal cases.). 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. 26 The above reasoning leads us to two pertinent conclusions. The Arizona Court of Appeals was established in 1965 and is the intermediate appellate court for the state. 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. 13118, the state has alleged, and the trier of fact has found, was committed for the purpose of sexual gratification. ArabicArmenian ALPHA 223 Ariz. 309, 1011, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. 309 0 obj <> endobj In context, these notations conveyed the probation officer's erroneous assumption that Espinoza had a duty to so register because of that adjudication. 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. See Ariz. R.Crim. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 8202(H)(1) and (2). Because this distinct legal question is not properly before us, we do not address it. CONCURRING: JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge and J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge. 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. Powered by, Justicia para el Futuro: Planificar Para Lograr la Excelencia. See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126, 2, 263 P.3d 675, 676 (App. Feedback 2 CA-CV 2022-0083-FC Filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. FinnishFrench 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). 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. The results revealed that his blood alcohol concentration was above 0.15. WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3. During oral argument before us, the State advised that its motion to admit defendant's statements was pending before the trial court. CatalanChinese (Simplified) As our supreme court has recently observed, the conclusion that a court cannot enter a valid judgment because of a procedural error does not mean that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. 133822 and 133824. 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. 16 Pursuant to A.R.S. This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. The email address cannot be subscribed. no. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. No. 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. 1 CA-CR 22-0581 PRPC FILED 4-27-2023 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and %%EOF 2 CA in the second example means Espinoza's counsel requested directions from the court concerning what Espinoza was required to do on probation. The appeals process is generally the same for both civil and criminal cases. 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. Yiddish No. The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Please try again. 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). ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184. 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. 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). 1 In this appeal, the state challenges the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice the indictment against appellee Jaime Espinoza for failure to register as a sex offender. 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. GermanGreek 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. 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.). You may contact the Clerk of the Court at (520) 628-6954. 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. 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. See Ariz. R.Crim. 35 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the indictment against Espinoza. hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has jurisdiction in all matters properly appealed from superior court; and. hb```f``f`a`Qg`@ rL r b00v0010:1.a(%PQQV_LaBSENT(-Oz SC[|M@mL;4)t~ 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 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. 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. 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. See 8202(H) (itemizing subject matter over which adult court secures jurisdiction of offense committed by juvenile). It is divided into two divisions, with a total 2 CACR 20100114PR, 45. 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). You're all set! A clerk of the court maintains official records and case files and handles the administrative duties of the court. 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.