See Ariz. R.Crim. Arizona Revised Statutes Legal Reference & Links 28-1383(D), followed by concurrent five-year terms of probation. Although our prior case law has established there is no abstract jurisdictional distinction created by a superior court's decision to divide itself into different administrative divisions, see Marvin Johnson, 184 Ariz. at 102, 907 P.2d at 71, our legislature has, in 8202, expressly set forth a specific, and jurisdictionally relevant, subcategory of the superior court called the juvenile court. Powered by, Justicia para el Futuro: Planificar Para Lograr la Excelencia. v. Myers, 184 Ariz. 98, 10102, 907 P.2d 67, 7071 (1995) (noting imprecise use of jurisdictional language in cases involving non-jurisdictional error). 2 We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal. 29 At the same time, nothing in the record supports that the trial court believed the criminal damage conviction authorized it to impose on Espinoza any threshold duty to register. All Rights Reserved. WebArizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 400 West Congress Street Tucson,Arizona United States 85701 520-628-6954 Mon-Fri 8:00am to 5:00pm Contact This court hears No. 1 Following a jury trial, appellant Javier Navarro was convicted of four counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. WebWelcome to the Arizona Appellate Court Case website. 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. 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 And you failed to do that, sir; do you understand that? Espinoza responded, Yes. No. 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). CzechDanish And, the trial court had no other information before it suggesting any other basis for ordering him to register as a sex offender. endstream endobj startxref WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. 2 CA-SA 2022-0024 Decided: July 01, 2022 12-120.09. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 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.). 8202(A). 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. 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.). Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1921, 223 P.3d at 657. 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. hUmo0+}@~KDx)-RM(\h$HPnI(EVmq#R~R( 4%HSDHHHNb 0xbJHfTG}4LaVmf7,-qvE1k:m-xtSgCGU;~q:0+QC[uWt6 OPINION. 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. Please try again. 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 3. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1618, 223 P.3d at 65556; Restatement 11 cmt. SwahiliSwedish 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. 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. Legal Associations 4 At the sentencing hearing in March 2004, the state urged the trial court to sentence Espinoza to a presumptive term of imprisonment. 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. 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. See 8202(H) (itemizing subject matter over which adult court secures jurisdiction of offense committed by juvenile). His attorneys failed to challenge either of these convictions in timely, of-right petitions for postconviction relief. It appears he was charged once again with failing to register in July 2008, shortly after his release from prison for the 2004 offense. 133821(D). This appeal followed. 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. We may affirm the court's ruling if it is legally correct for any reason. Human Resources, Volunteer 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. Rather, the phrase subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case. Id. 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. 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. 1975)). Self-Service Center ThaiTurkish Court Vacancies It lacked jurisdiction over the juvenile adjudication in its juvenile capacity because Espinoza had surpassed the age of eighteen. 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. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANGEL NOLAND JR., Appellant. 1990). 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. 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. At Espinoza's urging, the court further found he does not have to register as a sex offender in the future.. 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. 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. 15 We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss criminal charges for an abuse of discretion, but we review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. %%EOF That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. 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. 0 Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 2, Department A. A clerk of the court maintains official records and case files and handles the administrative duties of the court. MalayMaltese 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). That judgment was therefore obtained in violation of article II, 30 of the Arizona Constitution, a provision that expressly bars felony prosecutions in the absence of an indictment or information. All rights reserved. D20201560 The Honorable Careers 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. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). Espinoza filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment with Prejudice as Insufficient as a Matter of Law, in which he argued he was never legally ordered to register as a sex offender by any court and therefore could not be found guilty of having failed to comply with registration requirements. 2. HindiHungarian THE STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO. 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. Contact us. 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. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. They said that I have to do that, and I told him I got atforgot where I had to do that. The trial court found his claim precluded and, on review, we also denied relief. 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. No. So characterized, it would be merely a procedural error in the context of the court's appropriate jurisdictional authority to resolve an adult felony matter. CR 2012-125141-002 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 12, 962 P.2d 224, quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 31 (1994);7 accord Valley Vista Dev. 133821, persons convicted of specifically enumerated offenses are required to register as sex offenders in Arizona. WebThe court and its employees are not liable for any inaccurate or untimely information, or for misinterpretation or misuse of the data. 2. 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. 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. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to consider appeals in civil cases, including juvenile and domestic relations matters, from the Arizona Superior Court. The court also reviews workers compensation and unemployment benefits decisions, tax court decisions, and certain corporation commission decisions. 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. Examples: 1 CA-CV 95-0587; 2 CA-SA 89-338; 1 CA in the first example means Court of Appeals, Division 1 (Phoenix). This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. 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. 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. We affirm for the reasons that follow. Juv. hbbd``b`$ jD0OcDd7 HLH<1f`bd2r?O % During oral argument before us, the State advised that its motion to admit defendant's statements was pending before the trial court. 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. The state does not dispute that the juvenile court never ordered Espinoza to register as a sex offender. 35 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the indictment against Espinoza. Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox! Shortly after noon, defendant was given his Miranda warnings and he gave a statement. CORP Website 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. NorwegianPersian The juvenile court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency proceedings brought under the authority of this title. The email address cannot be subscribed. 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. See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. When Navarro filed his suppression motion below, he acknowledged that our now vacated decision in State v. Valenzuela, 237 Ariz. 307, 350 P.3d 811 (App. See 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). 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 STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. 13118, the state has alleged, and the trier of fact has found, was committed for the purpose of sexual gratification. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 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 8202(G) (jurisdiction of juvenile court retained only until child becomes eighteen years of age); see also In re Maricopa Cnty. 309 0 obj <> endobj No. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. 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. The email address cannot be subscribed. Division I; Division II; Superior Court; Justice Courts; City Courts; News & Info; Our Courts AZ; Guide to AZ Courts; Committees & Commissions. 223 Ariz. 309, 1011, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. Interpreters Feedback Chinese (Traditional)Croatian The appeals process is generally the same for both civil and criminal cases. The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. No. 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. Espinoza's counsel requested directions from the court concerning what Espinoza was required to do on probation. 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. Webin the arizona court of appeals division two the state of arizona, appellee, v. angel noland jr., appellant. 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. 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. This includes the court jurisdiction, process, FAQ, guides, resources, and a link to DutchEnglish Arizona has two appellate courts: the court of appeals is the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. reviews all decisions properly appealed to it. No. The court of appeals: hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has -- Select language -- And I have followed through. You're all set! FinnishFrench Decided: April 30, 2012 Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant.