arizona court of appeals, division 2

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. 13118, the state has alleged, and the trier of fact has found, was committed for the purpose of sexual gratification. 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. They said that I have to do that, and I told him I got atforgot where I had to do that. 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. No. S Educator Links Although that statute sets forth the circumstances under which a person may be required to register as a sex offender, it does not purport to address the jurisdiction of a superior court to hear and determine a particular type of case. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 14, 223 P.3d at 655. Volunteer-FCRB That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. 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. 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. Action No. 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. You may contact the Clerk of the Court at (520) 628-6954. 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. WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. National Center for State Courts OPINION. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO, Appellant. 8202(H)(1) and (2). P. 32.4(a) (first notice of post-conviction relief in of-right proceeding must be filed within ninety days after the entry of judgment and sentence). 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. 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, 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. 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. 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. Contact us. And you failed to do that, sir; do you understand that? Espinoza responded, Yes. VietnameseWelsh Their duties are outlined in A.R.S. Volunteer-CASA %%EOF 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. Although our implied consent statute, A.R.S. State v. Espinoza, No. WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 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. 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. 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. The official case record is maintained at the 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. 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. El Centro de Autoservicio, Contact Us WebArizona Court of Appeals. 2011).1 Navarro was arrested for DUI on February 15, 2015. 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. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. CONCURRING: JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge and J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge. All Rights Reserved. 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 court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. No. The email address cannot be subscribed. Haitian Creole ALPHAHebrew 8202(A). 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. 339 0 obj <>stream 12 After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding the Juvenile Court never ordered the defendant to register as a sex offender and [the] Superior Court then did not have jurisdiction to order that the defendant register as a sex offender in the 2004 criminal damage probation order, because such a requirement was a matter only to be determined by the Juvenile Court. Having concluded the superior court had been without jurisdiction to order Espinoza to register as a condition of his probation, the court further found that order void and dismissed the indictment against Espinoza with prejudice. WebCourt of Appeals. Please try again. Legal Associations WebCourt of Appeals. We assume trial courts know the law in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 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. 133821(D). His attorneys failed to challenge either of these convictions in timely, of-right petitions for postconviction relief. 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. 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 2 CA-CR 2016-0020 As WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. 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. 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.. 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. 2 CA-CV 2022-0083-FC Filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. It is divided into two divisions, with a total 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. Unaware of that error, Espinoza did not file a timely, of-right petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R.Crim. A clerk of the court maintains official records and case files and handles the administrative duties of the court. And I have followed through. 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). THE STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO. 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. See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. HindiHungarian Under the rule, [t]he court must exclude from a criminal trial any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and article 2, section 8, unless the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. State v. Peoples, ___ Ariz. ___, 9, 378 P.3d 421, 424 (2016). 14, 223 P.3d 653. As the state points out, in addition to substantive offenses enumerated in A.R.S. 1 The minor in this appeal fired four shots into the air in a residential neighborhood located in Pima County, Arizona. 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. DutchEnglish No. 1 CA-CR 22-0581 PRPC FILED 4-27-2023 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. \*+JIVM That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. Webin the arizona court of appeals division two the state of arizona, appellee, v. angel noland jr., appellant. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 2 ca-cr 2022-0134 filed april 28, 2023 this decision does not create 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. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. In context, these notations conveyed the probation officer's erroneous assumption that Espinoza had a duty to so register because of that adjudication. 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.. CzechDanish 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. 133822 and 133824. 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. 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. BelarusianBulgarian You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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). 0 SlovenianSpanish 2 CACR 20110214. 2 CA-SA 2022-0024 Decided: July 01, 2022 WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. BRANDON STEPHEN LOPEZ, Petitioner. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Career Opportunities WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Appellate information for filing in an Arizona Court of Appeals - Division Two. Arizona has two appellate courts: the court of appeals is the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. RomanianRussian The state does not dispute that the juvenile court never ordered Espinoza to register as a sex offender. 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. ThaiTurkish 2 CACR 20100114PR, 45. 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. It appears he was charged once again with failing to register in July 2008, shortly after his release from prison for the 2004 offense. And I have talked about it. 223 Ariz. 309, 1011, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. 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). 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). 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. Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox! reviews all decisions properly appealed to it. 23 That conclusion, however, does not end our inquiry. 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. Espinoza's counsel requested directions from the court concerning what Espinoza was required to do on probation. 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. Our supreme court denied further review. Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 2, Department A. During oral argument before us, the State advised that its motion to admit defendant's statements was pending before the trial court. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANGEL NOLAND JR., Appellant. Like Arizonas appellate courts, a federal court of appeals will not set aside the district courts exercise of discretion unless it is 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. The trial court found his claim precluded and, on review, we also denied relief. At Espinoza's urging, the court further found he does not have to register as a sex offender in the future.. The juvenile court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency proceedings brought under the authority of this title. JapaneseKorean hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has jurisdiction in all matters properly appealed from superior court; and. It provides: No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.. The court of appeals: hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has SerbianSlovak UkrainianUrdu ALPHA 11 In March 2011, Espinoza again was indicted for violating the requirements of sexual offender registration. e, 12 cmt. [emailprotected] Your Service a, b. 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. 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. Section 8202, A.R.S., which is entitled Jurisdiction of juvenile court, provides in pertinent part as follows: A. The Arizona Court of Appeals was established in 1965 and is the intermediate appellate court for the state. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. Division 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. 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. 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. State v. Espinoza, No. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). 133821, persons convicted of specifically enumerated offenses are required to register as sex offenders in Arizona. Corp. v. City of Broken Arrow, 766 P.2d 344, 348 (Okla.1988). 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. 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). See Ariz. R.Crim. CatalanChinese (Simplified) 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. 26 The above reasoning leads us to two pertinent conclusions. 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. 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. See A.R.S. See Ariz. R.Crim. 1990). Juv. It has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). You're all set! CORP Website 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.). 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. We did so, however, without identifying which of the several potential jurisdictional arguments we were resolving. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Chinese (Traditional)Croatian 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. hbbd``b`$ jD0OcDd7 HLH<1f`bd2r?O % The court revoked his probation and committed him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. All rights reserved. See 8202(G) (jurisdiction of juvenile court retained only until child becomes eighteen years of age); see also In re Maricopa Cnty. 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. 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. 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. PolishPortuguese 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. 12-120.09. 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. ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184. 28-1383(D), followed by concurrent five-year terms of probation. 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. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002).1. This includes the court jurisdiction, process, FAQ, guides, resources, and a link to 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). Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. GalicianGeorgian ALPHA Each division of the court of appeals has a clerk of the court and other support personnel. 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. State Bar of Arizona But true jurisdictional limitations on a court's authority remain and it is our conclusion that one of those boundaries has been breached here. 8327. 2 CA in the second example means 2. 8 The trial court summarily denied relief, citing Espinoza's failure to comply with Rule 32.2(b), which requires summary dismissal of an untimely notice of post-conviction relief that fails to include meritorious reasons why the claim was not stated in a timely manner. As the court noted, notwithstanding Espinoza's blanket statement that Rule 32 permits an untimely claim of actual innocence, neither Espinoza's notice nor his petition for relief set forth the reasons why the claim was not filed in a timely manner [and] has taken over four years to file. In addition to its summary denial, the court concluded Espinoza's claims lacked merit, finding Espinoza could not use the instant petition to challenge a condition of probation ordered in a separate cause number and noting he had acknowledged in a change-of-plea hearing that he had an affirmative duty to register and had not done so. On review of the trial court's ruling, we found no abuse of discretion and denied relief. Latin ALPHALatvian 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). We affirm for the reasons that follow. KGE1*6H>PzX:6&_73o3lWp6FYf:!x@nA@} 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. 2 We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal. 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 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. 2 CACR 20100114PR (memorandum decision filed July 9, 2010). 35 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the indictment against Espinoza. 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). 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.). After a hearing, the juvenile Human Resources, Volunteer 8 For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. And, the trial court had no other information before it suggesting any other basis for ordering him to register as a sex offender. Espinoza pleaded guilty to criminal damage. No. No. The Arizona Court of Appeals is the intermediate appellate court for the state of Arizona. It is divided into two divisions, with a total of twenty-eight judges on the court: nineteen in Division 1, based in Phoenix, and nine in Division 2, based in Tucson . 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. 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. 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.
Bags Similar To Myra Bags, Articles A