arizona court of appeals, division 2

%PDF-1.7 % 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. The trial court found his claim precluded and, on review, we also denied relief. Arizona has two appellate courts: the court of appeals is the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. 12-120.09. 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. 309 0 obj <> endobj WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANGEL NOLAND JR., Appellant. 2 CA-CR 2016-0020 As Because the warrantless breath test to which Navarro submitted did not violate any provision of the United States or Arizona Constitutions, according to our highest respective courts, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to this case.3. LithuanianMacedonian 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. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. No. 5 After Espinoza echoed his attorney's comments, the trial court asked, Are you sure? [Y]ou know, you were supposed to register? 4 At the sentencing hearing in March 2004, the state urged the trial court to sentence Espinoza to a presumptive term of imprisonment. The court revoked his probation and committed him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. A resident of Arizona and admitted to the practice of law in Arizona for the five years immediately prior to taking office. 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. 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. 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). And I have talked about it. 133822 and 133824. El Centro de Autoservicio, Contact Us 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. 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. 133821(A)(1)(18), (20)-(21).2. Legal Associations Staff Login, Translate this Page: 2 CACR 20110214. 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. In context, these notations conveyed the probation officer's erroneous assumption that Espinoza had a duty to so register because of that adjudication. 8202(A). 10 While review of that post-conviction proceeding was pending, Espinoza filed a notice of post-conviction relief challenging his sentence in the 2004 criminal damage case, specifically the order requiring him to register as a sex offender as a condition of his probation. 2 CA-CV 2022-0083-FC Filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 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. 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See 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. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. H. Persons who are under eighteen years of age shall be prosecuted in the same manner as adults if either: 1. 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. CatalanChinese (Simplified) See 239 Ariz. 299, 2, 371 P.3d at 629. 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. Again, Espinoza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment. Our supreme court denied further review. IcelandicIndonesian Espinoza, No. 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 19 In analyzing the 2004 order, we are mindful that not all legal errors are jurisdictional errors and that Arizona courts have, on occasion, conflated the two. 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. No. You may contact the Clerk of the Court at (520) 628-6954. P., to challenge the terms of his probation. All rights reserved. State Bar of Arizona WebCourt of Appeals. 21 In Maldonado, the trial court had erroneously entered a judgment of guilt against a defendant who had never been properly charged. SwahiliSwedish THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO, Appellant. 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. KGE1*6H>PzX:6&_73o3lWp6FYf:!x@nA@} 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. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of four months' incarceration, pursuant to A.R.S. 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. 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. JapaneseKorean Haitian Creole ALPHAHebrew This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. EstonianFilipino 8202(H)(1) and (2). GermanGreek hb```f``f`a`Qg`@ rL r b00v0010:1.a(%PQQV_LaBSENT(-Oz SC[|M@mL;4)t~ 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. 2 CA-SA 2022-0024 Decided: July 01, 2022 2 CA in the second example means Commission on Judicial Conduct 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. 13501 or those offenses wherein jurisdiction has been specifically transferred pursuant to the criteria set forth in A.R.S. 2 We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal. 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. Feedback WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. 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. No. hbbd``b`$ jD0OcDd7 HLH<1f`bd2r?O % Human Resources, Volunteer NOT FOR PUBLICATION Volunteer-AmeriCorps, Helpful Links 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). 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.. 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. 18 However, a superior court may require a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent for an act that would constitute an offense specified in either 133821(A) or (C) to register as a sex offender. 1. 1 CA-CR 22-0581 PRPC FILED 4-27-2023 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. The state does not dispute that the juvenile court never ordered Espinoza to register as a sex offender. Their duties are outlined in A.R.S. ThaiTurkish That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. WebArizona Court of Appeals. 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. Azerbaijani ALPHABasque ALPHA This site serves as a portal to a variety of information including case dockets on active cases, recent court decisions It is divided into two divisions, with a total His attorneys failed to challenge either of these convictions in timely, of-right petitions for postconviction relief. 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. 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. DutchEnglish SerbianSlovak E.V., a minor under 18 years of age, Petitioner, v. Hon. 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. 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. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Arizona Revised Statutes MalayMaltese 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. 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 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 A.R.S. Legal Reference & Links WebCourt of Appeals. 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. UkrainianUrdu ALPHA Self-Service Center 1 Following a jury trial, appellant Javier Navarro was convicted of four counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). We may affirm the court's ruling if it is legally correct for any reason. WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 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. Latin ALPHALatvian As the state points out, in addition to substantive offenses enumerated in A.R.S. The email address cannot be subscribed. 14, 223 P.3d 653. 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 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. The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. 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. 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. We assume trial courts know the law in the absence of evidence to the contrary. CR 2012-125141-002 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 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. Section 8202, A.R.S., which is entitled Jurisdiction of juvenile court, provides in pertinent part as follows: A. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO, Appellant. 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. 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. endstream endobj startxref Around 2:00 p.m., he gave another Mirandized statement to police. 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 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. Career Opportunities D20201560 The Honorable Although our implied consent statute, A.R.S. 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. 2015), was controlling, adverse authority; the trial court thus declined his request for a suppression hearing. 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. 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. \*+JIVM A clerk of the court maintains official records and case files and handles the administrative duties of the court. IrishItalian AfrikaansAlbanian The Arizona Court of Appeals was established in 1965 and is the intermediate appellate court for the state. SlovenianSpanish FinnishFrench 1990). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. Volunteer-CASA Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 2, Department A. 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. CORP Website 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.

James Arness Brothers And Sisters, Ascl4+ Molecular Shape, Why Is My Shein Package Stuck In Shipped, Articles A