761 P.2d 143 (Ariz.App. Div. 2 1988), 2 CA-SA 88-0012, State v. Rodriguez
|Docket Nº:||2 CA-SA 88-0012.|
|Citation:||761 P.2d 143, 158 Ariz. 69|
|Opinion Judge:|| Howard|
|Party Name:||STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. Honorable Lina RODRIGUEZ, Judge of the Superior Court, In and For the County of Pima, Respondent, and Jeffrey William DICUS, Real Party in Interest.|
|Attorney:|| Stephen D. Neely, Pima Co. Atty. by David Rubenstein, Tucson, for petitioner.  Law Office of William J. Redondo by Patrick C. Hurd, Tucson, for real party in interest.|
|Case Date:||March 22, 1988|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Review Denied Oct. 4, 1988. [*]
Stephen D. Neely, Pima Co. Atty. by David Rubenstein, Tucson, for petitioner.
Law Office of William J. Redondo by Patrick C. Hurd, Tucson, for real party in interest.
HOWARD, Presiding Judge.
The state has brought this special action from the trial court's refusal to grant a
[158 Ariz. 70] motion to vacate hearing and to quash subpoena, a motion which arose from the real party in interest's challenge to a new program implemented by the Pima County Attorney's Office excluding certain offenders from plea bargaining. We believe the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the hearing. Since the state has no equally plain, speedy or adequate remedy by appeal, we assume jurisdiction and grant relief.
The applicable facts which led to the instant ruling are as follows. The real party in interest, Jeffrey Dicus, was arrested on August 27, 1987, for stealing 18 cartons of cigarettes and a $30 car stereo from two Tucson stores. He and a codefendant, Larry Reid, were indicted on two counts of third-degree burglary and one count of theft by control. Defense counsel was informed that due to the existence of a new program implemented by the Pima County Attorney's Office whereby certain "target offenders" are to be offered no plea bargains whatsoever, real party in interest would either have to plead to all charges or go to trial on all charges. Under the Target Offender Program, a defendant is deemed ineligible for plea negotiations if he or she meets the following criteria: between the ages of 18 and 25; juvenile law enforcement contact; prior arrest; drug or alcohol abuse history; sporadic employment or post-adjudication/conviction incarceration.
The real party in interest was deemed to meet the TOP profile although he is 26 years old. No plea offer was made and his minimum prison exposure is 10, 12 or 14 years at two-thirds time. The codefendant's background is very similar to that of the real party in interest except that he is 40 years old. He was offered...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP