WebThe court and its employees are not liable for any inaccurate or untimely information, or for misinterpretation or misuse of the data. 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. 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. 1. 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. ThaiTurkish 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. It provides: No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.. 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 WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 CACR 20100114PR (memorandum decision filed July 9, 2010). 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. 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. The trial court summarily denied Navarro's motion to suppress this evidence and, in January 2016, entered the judgment and sentence. S 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 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. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. 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. State Bar of Arizona 12-120.09. 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. 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.). 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. %%EOF 2 ca-cr 2022-0134 filed april 28, 2023 this decision does not create Espinoza pleaded guilty to criminal damage. Shortly after noon, defendant was given his Miranda warnings and he gave a statement. 8327. We did so, however, without identifying which of the several potential jurisdictional arguments we were resolving. D20201560 The Honorable Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox! Decided: April 30, 2012 Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Tucson, Attorneys for Appellant. After a hearing, the juvenile Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 133821(A)(1)(18), (20)-(21).2. 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 Yiddish 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. See Ariz. R.Crim. H. Persons who are under eighteen years of age shall be prosecuted in the same manner as adults if either: 1. *. 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. 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. 35 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the indictment against Espinoza. Privacy Notice Interpreters 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. 8202(A). 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. Please try again. Our supreme court denied further review. v. Myers, 184 Ariz. 98, 10102, 907 P.2d 67, 7071 (1995) (noting imprecise use of jurisdictional language in cases involving non-jurisdictional error). During oral argument before us, the State advised that its motion to admit defendant's statements was pending before the trial court. The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. 11 In March 2011, Espinoza again was indicted for violating the requirements of sexual offender registration. The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. GermanGreek endstream endobj startxref 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. The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. 1975)). 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. It has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). WebIt has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANGEL NOLAND JR., Appellant. 2 CA-CR 2016-0020 As 26 The above reasoning leads us to two pertinent conclusions. 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. The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. 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 \*+JIVM No. The official case record is maintained at the 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. Arizona has two appellate courts: the court of appeals is the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. Like Arizonas appellate courts, a federal court of appeals will not set aside the district courts exercise of discretion unless it is 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). Volunteer-CASA This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Arizona Court of Appeals was established in 1965 and is the intermediate appellate court for the state. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 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. 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.. His attorneys failed to challenge either of these convictions in timely, of-right petitions for postconviction relief. 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. 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. 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. Court Vacancies 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 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. Again, Espinoza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment. OPINION. 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. IcelandicIndonesian 2 CA-CR 2022-0068 Filed April 27, The trial court found his claim precluded and, on review, we also denied relief. 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. 2 We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal. 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. BelarusianBulgarian 1 Following a jury trial, appellant Javier Navarro was convicted of four counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1921, 223 P.3d at 657. 2 CA in the second example means PolishPortuguese 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). See 8202(H) (itemizing subject matter over which adult court secures jurisdiction of offense committed by juvenile). 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. -- Select language -- 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. And I have talked about it. Around 2:00 p.m., he gave another Mirandized statement to police. 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. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Juv. As the state points out, in addition to substantive offenses enumerated in A.R.S. No. ArabicArmenian ALPHA 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.). 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. Because this distinct legal question is not properly before us, we do not address it. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). 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. 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. No. 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. 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. Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 2, Department A. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. And I have followed through. 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. 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. 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). 5 After Espinoza echoed his attorney's comments, the trial court asked, Are you sure? [Y]ou know, you were supposed to register? CR 2012-125141-002 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF bs%0c{^L4-\A Y 31 AfrikaansAlbanian Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and SerbianSlovak 2011).1 Navarro was arrested for DUI on February 15, 2015. The appeals process is generally the same for both civil and criminal cases. We assume trial courts know the law in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 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. 12, 962 P.2d 224, quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 31 (1994);7 accord Valley Vista Dev. 21 In Maldonado, the trial court had erroneously entered a judgment of guilt against a defendant who had never been properly charged. And, the trial court had no other information before it suggesting any other basis for ordering him to register as a sex offender. 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. FinnishFrench NOT FOR PUBLICATION See 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 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. The court revoked his probation and committed him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. At Espinoza's urging, the court further found he does not have to register as a sex offender in the future.. Haitian Creole ALPHAHebrew This site serves as a portal to a variety of information including case dockets on active cases, recent court decisions No. 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 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. You're all set! Azerbaijani ALPHABasque ALPHA 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. 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. 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. 2 CACR 20110066PR (memorandum decision filed June 16, 2011). No. 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. 28-1383(D), followed by concurrent five-year terms of probation. Careers 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. 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. This includes the court jurisdiction, process, FAQ, guides, resources, and a link to 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. It appears he was charged once again with failing to register in July 2008, shortly after his release from prison for the 2004 offense. 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. VietnameseWelsh 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. E.V., a minor under 18 years of age, Petitioner, v. Hon. ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184. CONCURRING: JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge and J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge. Action No. See, e.g., Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 18, 223 P.3d at 656. 28-1321(B), (D), normally prohibits law enforcement officers from collecting samples for chemical testing in the absence of either actual consent or a search warrant, Navarro has not developed any argument that a violation of this statute requires the suppression of evidence in a criminal trial. Legal Reference & Links Cf. 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. 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. RomanianRussian Latin ALPHALatvian 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). WebArizona Court of Appeals. 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. 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. Web, 513 F.2d 140, 146 (9th Cir. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. 133821(D). CORP Website All rights reserved. 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). 1 The minor in this appeal fired four shots into the air in a residential neighborhood located in Pima County, Arizona. 133821, persons convicted of specifically enumerated offenses are required to register as sex offenders in Arizona. No. 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. 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. NorwegianPersian 2 CACR 20100114PR, 45. No. 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. 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. 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. 2 CA-CV 2022-0083-FC Filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. Site Map This appeal followed. 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.
Queen Elizabeth Cabins To Avoid,
Ip Address For Glastonbury Tickets,
Articles A