The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, It is divided into two divisions, with a total 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. 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). Feedback Espinoza, No. 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. 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. 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.). 133821(D). 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. 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 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. HindiHungarian Arizona Judicial Branch > AZ Courts > Court of Appeals > Division II 223 Ariz. 309, 1011, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. Webin the arizona court of appeals division two the state of arizona, appellee, v. angel noland jr., appellant. Commission on Judicial Conduct P., to challenge the terms of his probation. 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). PolishPortuguese 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. CONCURRING: JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge and J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge. 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. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. No. ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184. 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 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. But true jurisdictional limitations on a court's authority remain and it is our conclusion that one of those boundaries has been breached here. 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. WebCourt of Appeals. 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. 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.. 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, WebArizona Court of Appeals. AZ Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has jurisdiction in all matters properly appealed from superior court; and. 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. endstream endobj startxref In context, these notations conveyed the probation officer's erroneous assumption that Espinoza had a duty to so register because of that adjudication. 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.). Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). 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. 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. 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. 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. GalicianGeorgian ALPHA The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. Arizona Court Of Appeals, Division Two - State Courts 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. OPINION. No. Arizona Court of Appeals 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. E.V., a minor under 18 years of age, Petitioner, v. Hon. 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. 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). 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. 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. As the state points out, in addition to substantive offenses enumerated in A.R.S. H. Persons who are under eighteen years of age shall be prosecuted in the same manner as adults if either: 1. The state does not dispute that the juvenile court never ordered Espinoza to register as a sex offender. NorwegianPersian MalayMaltese 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. 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. Division I; Division II; Superior Court; Justice Courts; City Courts; News & Info; Our Courts AZ; Guide to AZ Courts; Committees & Commissions. 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. CT - Court of Appeals - Division II | AZ Direct - Arizona Arizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 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. *. CatalanChinese (Simplified) Court of Appeals reviews all decisions properly appealed to it. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and ThaiTurkish State v. Berg, 76 Ariz. 96, 103, 259 P.2d 261, 266 (1953), overruled on other grounds by State v. Pina, 94 Ariz. 243, 245, 383 P.2d 167, 168 (1963). 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. JapaneseKorean 309 0 obj <> endobj 8 For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. KGE1*6H>PzX:6&_73o3lWp6FYf:!x@nA@} 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. The court revoked his probation and committed him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. no. -- Select language -- 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. 1 The minor in this appeal fired four shots into the air in a residential neighborhood located in Pima County, Arizona. 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. Please try again. See Ariz. R.Crim. 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. 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.). Court of Appeals Section 8202, A.R.S., which is entitled Jurisdiction of juvenile court, provides in pertinent part as follows: A. As both the Restatement of Judgments and our supreme court have acknowledged, the law of jurisdiction often has been directed and distorted by the comparative weight of those values in the individual case. See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. CzechDanish 2 CACR 20100114PR, 45. 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.. 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. RomanianRussian 133821(C). Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. Interpreters 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 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. GermanGreek We may affirm the court's ruling if it is legally correct for any reason. 1990). We assume trial courts know the law in the absence of evidence to the contrary. His attorneys failed to challenge either of these convictions in timely, of-right petitions for postconviction relief. Our supreme court denied further review. 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. \*+JIVM 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. Like Arizonas appellate courts, a federal court of appeals will not set aside the district courts exercise of discretion unless it is 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Each division of the court of appeals has a clerk of the court and other support personnel. All Rights Reserved. The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 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. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 1984). Examples: 1 CA-CV 95-0587; 2 CA-SA 89-338; 1 CA in the first example means Court of Appeals, Division 1 (Phoenix). Espinoza pleaded guilty to criminal damage. Home [apps.supremecourt.az.gov] The juvenile is charged as an adult with an offense listed in 13501. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 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 trial court summarily denied Navarro's motion to suppress this evidence and, in January 2016, entered the judgment and sentence. 2 CA in the second example means 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. 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). 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. We agree and therefore affirm the trial court's ruling. Legal Associations 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. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). No. It lacked jurisdiction over the juvenile adjudication in its juvenile capacity because Espinoza had surpassed the age of eighteen. Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox! WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. Volunteer-FCRB STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS :: 2023 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. S 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. STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANGEL NOLAND, JR. :: 2023 :: 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. Unaware of that error, Espinoza did not file a timely, of-right petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R.Crim. Decided: April 30, 2012 Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant. 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). 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. Espinoza's counsel requested directions from the court concerning what Espinoza was required to do on probation. 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. Site Map 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. Appeals - Division Two of Arizona Court of Appeals - AzCourtHelp 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. Contact us. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS - cases.justia.com (There are filing fees in civil cases, but not for criminal cases.). That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. D20201560 The Honorable 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. AZ Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw See A.R.S. This appeal followed. 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. ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS 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. 2 ca-cr 2022-0134 filed april 28, 2023 this decision does not create 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. 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). 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. 8202(H)(1) and (2). 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. WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. National Center for State Courts 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. El Centro de Autoservicio, Contact Us See Ariz. R.Crim. 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. ARIZONA 5 After Espinoza echoed his attorney's comments, the trial court asked, Are you sure? [Y]ou know, you were supposed to register? THE STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO. 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. Contact us. 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. 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. Court Vacancies %PDF-1.7 % State v. Espinoza, No. Arizona Court of Appeals - Ballotpedia IcelandicIndonesian Shortly after noon, defendant was given his Miranda warnings and he gave a statement. No. See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126, 2, 263 P.3d 675, 676 (App. [emailprotected] Your Service SlovenianSpanish Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. SerbianSlovak 12, 962 P.2d 224, quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 31 (1994);7 accord Valley Vista Dev. We affirm for the reasons that follow. CORP Website 2 CACR 20110214. Staff Login, Translate this Page: Court of Appeals 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