arizona court of appeals, division 2

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.. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. 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. Contact us. KGE1*6H>PzX:6&_73o3lWp6FYf:!x@nA@} 1. The juvenile is charged as an adult with an offense listed in 13501. Section 8202, A.R.S., which is entitled Jurisdiction of juvenile court, provides in pertinent part as follows: A. Interpreters 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. a, b. Web, 513 F.2d 140, 146 (9th Cir. 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 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 Examples: 1 CA-CV 95-0587; 2 CA-SA 89-338; 1 CA in the first example means Court of Appeals, Division 1 (Phoenix). %%EOF 133821(J), 133822(A), 133824. A resident of Arizona and admitted to the practice of law in Arizona for the five years immediately prior to taking office. 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. Privacy Notice 133821(A)(1)(18), (20)-(21).2. Career Opportunities And you failed to do that, sir; do you understand that? Espinoza responded, Yes. And I have talked about it. 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. No. Again, Espinoza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment. Court Vacancies WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. Those consequences were set forth by a juvenile court more than six years earlier and no longer could be modified after Espinoza's eighteenth birthday in March 2002. State v. Espinoza, No. But, as explained below, there is a concrete jurisdictional boundary, expressly set forth by our legislature, between a superior court addressing felony charges in its adult jurisdiction and when it addresses juvenile delinquency in its capacity as a juvenile court. 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. Espinoza pleaded guilty to criminal damage. 1990). e, 12 cmt. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. This appeal followed. 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.). THE STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO. Yiddish Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. D20201560 The Honorable 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. Because this distinct legal question is not properly before us, we do not address it. 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. 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. 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. 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. 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). 26 The above reasoning leads us to two pertinent conclusions. Educator Links Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 2, Department A. See Ariz. R.Crim. WebIt has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). State Bar of Arizona 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. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions Decisions. 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. 2 CA in the second example means WebCourt of Appeals. hbbd``b`$ jD0OcDd7 HLH<1f`bd2r?O % 21 In Maldonado, the trial court had erroneously entered a judgment of guilt against a defendant who had never been properly charged. 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). 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. WebArizona Court of Appeals. 0 State v. Espinoza, No. Division CORP Website 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. See Ariz. R.Crim. hb```f``f`a`Qg`@ rL r b00v0010:1.a(%PQQV_LaBSENT(-Oz SC[|M@mL;4)t~ 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. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See The official case record is maintained at the El Centro de Autoservicio, Contact Us 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. P., to challenge the terms of his probation. 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. All rights reserved. IrishItalian 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. Legal Associations 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 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. \*+JIVM See 239 Ariz. 299, 2, 371 P.3d at 629. Corp. v. City of Broken Arrow, 766 P.2d 344, 348 (Okla.1988). It has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). 28-1383(D), followed by concurrent five-year terms of probation. But true jurisdictional limitations on a court's authority remain and it is our conclusion that one of those boundaries has been breached here. 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). We affirm for the reasons that follow. 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. 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. You may contact the Clerk of the Court at (520) 628-6954. 12, 962 P.2d 224, quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 31 (1994);7 accord Valley Vista Dev. 2 CACR 20100114PR, 45. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and The sole issue Navarro raises on appeal is whether the results of his warrantless breath test should have been suppressed in light of State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, 371 P.3d 627 (2016). See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126, 2, 263 P.3d 675, 676 (App. Please try again. v. Myers, 184 Ariz. 98, 10102, 907 P.2d 67, 7071 (1995) (noting imprecise use of jurisdictional language in cases involving non-jurisdictional error). 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. hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has jurisdiction in all matters properly appealed from superior court; and. 223 Ariz. 309, 1011, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. 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. BelarusianBulgarian 35 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the indictment against Espinoza. The email address cannot be subscribed. reviews all decisions properly appealed to it. 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. 2 CA-SA 2022-0024 Decided: July 01, 2022 FinnishFrench 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 appeals process is generally the same for both civil and criminal cases. 8202(A). 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. 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. 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. This includes the court jurisdiction, process, FAQ, guides, resources, and a link to Human Resources, Volunteer 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. 2 CACR 20110214. The email address cannot be subscribed. 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.). 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. See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. Feedback 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. 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. 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. 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. The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. 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. 14, 223 P.3d 653. Unaware of that error, Espinoza did not file a timely, of-right petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R.Crim. At Espinoza's urging, the court further found he does not have to register as a sex offender in the future.. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. No. 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. And I have followed through. His attorneys failed to challenge either of these convictions in timely, of-right petitions for postconviction relief. 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. 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. -- Select language -- 1975)). Arizona Revised Statutes 133822 and 133824. All Rights Reserved. WebCourt of Appeals. We may affirm the court's ruling if it is legally correct for any reason. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 11 In March 2011, Espinoza again was indicted for violating the requirements of sexual offender registration. 133821(D). bs%0c{^L4-\A Y 31 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. AfrikaansAlbanian JapaneseKorean 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.). Our supreme court denied further review. 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. 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. endstream endobj startxref The court revoked his probation and committed him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. 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. GermanGreek They said that I have to do that, and I told him I got atforgot where I had to do that. 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. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 11 cmt. That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. 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. 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 Their duties are outlined in A.R.S. 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. We assume trial courts know the law in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 2 ca-cr 2022-0134 filed april 28, 2023 this decision does not create 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). It lacked jurisdiction over the juvenile adjudication in its juvenile capacity because Espinoza had surpassed the age of eighteen. Haitian Creole ALPHAHebrew No. 2011).1 Navarro was arrested for DUI on February 15, 2015. 133821, persons convicted of specifically enumerated offenses are required to register as sex offenders in Arizona. 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. SlovenianSpanish 2. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). It provides: No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.. Please try again. 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. EstonianFilipino 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. 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. 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).

Jacksonville, Florida Obituaries 2021, Why Did Steve Kanaly Leave Dallas, Lone Wolf Knives Loveless, The Word Beneficial Means Weegy, Cokodive Cancel Order, Articles A