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. WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. Azerbaijani ALPHABasque ALPHA 26 The above reasoning leads us to two pertinent conclusions. 12, 962 P.2d 224, quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 31 (1994);7 accord Valley Vista Dev. 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. 12-120.09. 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. 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.. 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. The juvenile is charged as an adult with an offense listed in 13501. 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. It lacked jurisdiction over the juvenile adjudication in its juvenile capacity because Espinoza had surpassed the age of eighteen. 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. No. 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. See 8202(H) (itemizing subject matter over which adult court secures jurisdiction of offense committed by juvenile). 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. Interpreters 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. 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). 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. ThaiTurkish Arizona Court Of Appeals, Division Two - State Courts A resident of Arizona and admitted to the practice of law in Arizona for the five years immediately prior to taking office. \*+JIVM PolishPortuguese Contact us. 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). 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. CatalanChinese (Simplified) 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. Juv. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 11 cmt. (There are filing fees in civil cases, but not for criminal cases.). See A.R.S. 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. The state does not dispute that the juvenile court never ordered Espinoza to register as a sex offender. 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. 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. See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. Our supreme court denied further review. Cf. 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. 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. 1984). WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and 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. Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 2, Department A. 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. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO, Appellant. 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. No. 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. 23 That conclusion, however, does not end our inquiry. 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. Shortly after noon, defendant was given his Miranda warnings and he gave a statement. No. 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. MalayMaltese But true jurisdictional limitations on a court's authority remain and it is our conclusion that one of those boundaries has been breached here. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1921, 223 P.3d at 657. This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. Examples: 1 CA-CV 95-0587; 2 CA-SA 89-338; 1 CA in the first example means Court of Appeals, Division 1 (Phoenix). 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). This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. State v. Espinoza, No. 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.). Around 2:00 p.m., he gave another Mirandized statement to police. After a hearing, the juvenile The results revealed that his blood alcohol concentration was above 0.15. 11 In March 2011, Espinoza again was indicted for violating the requirements of sexual offender registration. 2 CA-CV 2022-0083-FC Filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. WebWelcome to the Arizona Appellate Court Case website. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS - cases.justia.com At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 1 Following a jury trial, appellant Javier Navarro was convicted of four counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). 2 CA-CR 2016-0020 As v. Myers, 184 Ariz. 98, 10102, 907 P.2d 67, 7071 (1995) (noting imprecise use of jurisdictional language in cases involving non-jurisdictional error). 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. 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. Arizona Revised Statutes Career Opportunities 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. 8202(H)(1) and (2). 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 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. Decided: April 30, 2012 Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant. KGE1*6H>PzX:6&_73o3lWp6FYf:!x@nA@} Legal Associations AZ Court of Appeals Opinions and Cases | FindLaw It is divided into two divisions, with a total 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. The trial court summarily denied Navarro's motion to suppress this evidence and, in January 2016, entered the judgment and sentence. The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. 133821(A)(1)(18), (20)-(21).2. Please try again. 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, the trial court had no other information before it suggesting any other basis for ordering him to register as a sex offender. Please try again. And you failed to do that, sir; do you understand that? Espinoza responded, Yes. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. WebThe court and its employees are not liable for any inaccurate or untimely information, or for misinterpretation or misuse of the data. 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.). 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. That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. Arizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 - AzCourtHelp 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. 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. bs%0c{^L4-\A Y 31 During oral argument before us, the State advised that its motion to admit defendant's statements was pending before the trial court. 133821(D). 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. ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. Appellate information for filing in an Arizona Court of Appeals - Division Two. 13118, the state has alleged, and the trier of fact has found, was committed for the purpose of sexual gratification. 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. ARIZONA 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). 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. 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. Our highest court concluded in Bergmuch like the Supreme Court did in Birchfield, ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184 that requiring a DUI arrestee to exhale into a testing device is a slight inconvenience that represents a burden which such defendant must bear for the common interest. Berg, 76 Ariz. at 103, 259 P.2d at 266; accord Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 547, 479 P.2d 685, 690 (1971). In that proceeding, he argued he was entitled to relief because he was actually innocent of the charge pursuant to Rule 32.1(h), a ground not automatically subject to preclusion for untimely filing.