The official case record is maintained at the Contact us. 2. 8327. The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. endstream endobj startxref It is divided into two divisions, with a total Action No. 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. *. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. WebCourt of Appeals. 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. 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. Arizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 Staff Login, Translate this Page: Decided: April 30, 2012 Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant. 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. 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. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO, Appellant. 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 Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. 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. Please try again. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). PolishPortuguese 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. 2015), was controlling, adverse authority; the trial court thus declined his request for a suppression hearing. IcelandicIndonesian WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. 16 Pursuant to A.R.S. But true jurisdictional limitations on a court's authority remain and it is our conclusion that one of those boundaries has been breached here. You can explore additional available newsletters here. WebWelcome to the Arizona Appellate Court Case website. 1 Following a jury trial, appellant Javier Navarro was convicted of four counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). At that time, a police officer read Navarro the same admin per se form that our supreme court later held to be invalid in Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, 5, 22, 28, 371 P.3d at 629-30, 634, 636. State Bar of Arizona See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126, 2, 263 P.3d 675, 676 (App. 2 CA in the second example means bs%0c{^L4-\A Y 31 We may affirm the court's ruling if it is legally correct for any reason. The email address cannot be subscribed. 1990). Each division of the court of appeals has a clerk of the court and other support personnel. STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANGEL NOLAND, JR. :: 2023 :: 12, 962 P.2d 224, quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 31 (1994);7 accord Valley Vista Dev. All rights reserved. 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. Please try again. A resident of Arizona and admitted to the practice of law in Arizona for the five years immediately prior to taking office. 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. You're all set! Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 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. 8202(A). 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. Shortly after noon, defendant was given his Miranda warnings and he gave a statement. 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. STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS :: 2023 WebArizona Court of Appeals. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. 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. Division Two Court Appeals - AzCourtHelp No. (There are filing fees in civil cases, but not for criminal cases.). Feedback ARIZONA Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 2, Department A. Corp. v. City of Broken Arrow, 766 P.2d 344, 348 (Okla.1988). Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. No. 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. 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. 13501 or those offenses wherein jurisdiction has been specifically transferred pursuant to the criteria set forth in A.R.S. Court of Appeals 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 WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. 13118, the state has alleged, and the trier of fact has found, was committed for the purpose of sexual gratification. See Ariz. R.Crim. See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. The juvenile court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency proceedings brought under the authority of this title. You may contact the Clerk of the Court at (520) 628-6954. MalayMaltese KGE1*6H>PzX:6&_73o3lWp6FYf:!x@nA@} 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. 14, 223 P.3d 653. As the state points out, in addition to substantive offenses enumerated in A.R.S. 1975)). As an intermediate appellate court, we cannot disaffirm a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court on a matter under our state constitution, even if we believe the decision should be revisited. The court revoked his probation and committed him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. 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. Espinoza pleaded guilty to criminal damage. All Rights Reserved. And I have followed through. The email address cannot be subscribed. S Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1921, 223 P.3d at 657. D20201560 The Honorable Court of Appeals Division One - Arizona Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 133821(C). No. A clerk of the court maintains official records and case files and handles the administrative duties of the court. Volunteer-FCRB 133821(D). 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). At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 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. After a hearing, the juvenile See 239 Ariz. 299, 2, 371 P.3d at 629. 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. 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. SwahiliSwedish hbbd``b`$ jD0OcDd7 HLH<1f`bd2r?O % And you failed to do that, sir; do you understand that? Espinoza responded, Yes. 2 CA-SA 2022-0024 Decided: July 01, 2022 Section 8202, A.R.S., which is entitled Jurisdiction of juvenile court, provides in pertinent part as follows: A. We affirm for the reasons that follow. Arizona Court of Appeals SerbianSlovak VietnameseWelsh CatalanChinese (Simplified) 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. Their duties are outlined in A.R.S. ARIZONA See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 11 cmt. 1 CA-CR 22-0581 PRPC FILED 4-27-2023 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. We did so, however, without identifying which of the several potential jurisdictional arguments we were resolving. And, the trial court had no other information before it suggesting any other basis for ordering him to register as a sex offender. It provides: No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. 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. 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. That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002).1. Arizona Judicial Branch > AZ Courts > Court of Appeals > Division II 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. 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. 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. State v. Espinoza, No. 23 That conclusion, however, does not end our inquiry. The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. 223 Ariz. 309, 1011, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. 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. Powered by, Justicia para el Futuro: Planificar Para Lograr la Excelencia. NorwegianPersian CT - Court of Appeals - Division II | AZ Direct - Arizona 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. 35 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the indictment against Espinoza. Division I; Division II; Superior Court; Justice Courts; City Courts; News & Info; Our Courts AZ; Guide to AZ Courts; Committees & Commissions. Haitian Creole ALPHAHebrew No. The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. 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. EstonianFilipino Appeals - Division Two of Arizona Court of Appeals - AzCourtHelp 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 We therefore agree with the trial court that the superior court judge who presided over Espinoza's adult criminal damage conviction and sentencing proceedings, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the order requiring Espinoza to register as a sex offender. Espinoza, No. No. 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). 2 ca-cr 2022-0134 filed april 28, 2023 this decision does not create 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. All rights reserved. -- Select language -- 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). Although our implied consent statute, A.R.S. 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. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1618, 223 P.3d at 65556; Restatement 11 cmt. Yiddish This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 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. The court of appeals: hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has National Center for State Courts 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. 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. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS - cases.justia.com Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 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). SlovenianSpanish 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. ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO 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. 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, See A.R.S. a (1982) (The authority of courts derives from constitutional provisions or from statutory provisions adopted in the exercise of a legislative authority, express or implied, to establish courts and to provide for their jurisdiction.); Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 14, 223 P.3d at 655 ( [S]ubject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.). 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. 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. The results revealed that his blood alcohol concentration was above 0.15. The Arizona Court of Appeals was established in 1965 and is the intermediate appellate court for the state. Home [apps.supremecourt.az.gov] 2011).1 Navarro was arrested for DUI on February 15, 2015. 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. CONCURRING: JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge and J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge. Court of Appeals - Arizona Judicial Branch 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. 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. His attorneys failed to challenge either of these convictions in timely, of-right petitions for postconviction relief. AZ Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw 2. ARIZONA WebThe court and its employees are not liable for any inaccurate or untimely information, or for misinterpretation or misuse of the data. 2 CA-CV 2022-0083-FC Filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. 2 We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal. Cf. No. Arizona Briefs Collection | Ross-Blakley Law Library 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 It appears he was charged once again with failing to register in July 2008, shortly after his release from prison for the 2004 offense. Again, Espinoza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment. 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. 133821(A)(1)(18), (20)-(21).2. 12-120.09. Arizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 - AzCourtHelp 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. 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. In the presentence report, a probation officer informed the trial court of Espinoza's adjudication of delinquency and added, A review of the Arizona Department of Public Safety records indicates the defendant never registered as a juvenile sex offender.. ArabicArmenian ALPHA 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. CzechDanish We agree and therefore affirm the trial court's ruling. Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox! Arizona Court Of Appeals, Division Two - State Courts no. Espinoza's counsel requested directions from the court concerning what Espinoza was required to do on probation. Webin the arizona court of appeals division two the state of arizona, appellee, v. angel noland jr., appellant. ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184. 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. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. In context, these notations conveyed the probation officer's erroneous assumption that Espinoza had a duty to so register because of that adjudication. 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. 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. WebCourt of Appeals. The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. LithuanianMacedonian BelarusianBulgarian Like Arizonas appellate courts, a federal court of appeals will not set aside the district courts exercise of discretion unless it is hUmo0+}@~KDx)-RM(\h$HPnI(EVmq#R~R( 4%HSDHHHNb 0xbJHfTG}4LaVmf7,-qvE1k:m-xtSgCGU;~q:0+QC[uWt6 3. 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. The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. 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). WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 133822 and 133824. 339 0 obj <>stream It has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). 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. This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. 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. Arizona Revised Statutes 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. E.V., a minor under 18 years of age, Petitioner, v. Hon. 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.