Anderson, Application of
| Decision Date | 21 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | Application of Edwin H. ANDERSON for a writ of habeas corpus. L. C. BOIES, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Respondent-Appellant, v. Edwin H. ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellee. 498. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., by Frank A. Parks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
This case involves an appeal from an order of the Maricopa County Superior Court granting a writ of habeas corpus and ordering the release of Edwin H. Anderson. Although neither party has challenged the jurisdiction of this Court, we must inquire into our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Stevens v. Mehagain's Home Furnishings, Inc., 90 Ariz. 42, 365 P.2d 208 (1961); Searles v. Haldiman, 3 Ariz.App. 294, 413 P.2d 860 (1966); Pegler v. Sullivan, 4 Ariz.App. 149, 418 P.2d 395 (1966).
The appellee, Anderson, was charged by a criminal complaint in the State of California with the crime of grand theft. At the time of the filing of the complaint, he was in the State of Arizona. The California executive authority instituted extradition proceedings. Anderson was ordered extradited after a Governor's hearing in Arizona. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13--1310, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ was issued in the trial court. At the conclusion of the hearing in the trial court a minute entry order was entered granting Anderson's release. This appeal is by the Sheriff from the minute entry order of release.
The jurisdictional issue presented is whether a judgment or order in a habeas corpus proceeding must be reduced to writing, signed by a judge and filed in accordance with Civil Rules 54(a) and 58(a), 16 A.R.S., before it is final and effective for purposes of appeal as in any civil proceeding, or whether the special nature of habeas corpus entitles such a proceeding to be treated as a criminal proceeding subject to the rule of State v. Dowthard,92 Ariz. 44, 373 P.2d 357 (1962). Dowthard holds that a judgment in a criminal case is complete and valid when it is orally pronounced by the court and entered in the minutes, there being no requirement of a written judgment. We deem this issue to be of sufficient general interest to warrant a formal opinion.
A habeas corpus proceeding is not a criminal proceeding. It is a civil proceeding collaterally attacking a judgment to test the legality of and correctness of detention. See Oswald v. Martin, 70 Ariz. 392, 222 P.2d 632 (1950); Eyman v. Cumbo, 99 Ariz. 8, 405 P.2d 889 (1965); Leonard v. Eyman, 1 Ariz.App. 593, 405 P.2d 903 (1965). It has long been held in Arizona that an appeal in a habeas corpus matter is governed by the provisions of the civil and not the penal code, and failure to comply with the civil appeal statutes is grounds for dismissal. Musgrave v. State, 24 Ariz. 582, 211 P. 594 (1923); In re Belmas, 25 Ariz. 235, 215 P. 728 (1923).
No provision is made in the criminal appeal statutes for appeals in habeas corpus proceedings. The only provisions relating to appeals in habeas corpus are found in the civil appeals statute, A.R.S. § 12--2101. Appeals are permitted under subsection L of § 12--2101,
'From an order or judgment made and entered on habeas corpus proceedings:
It would be inconsistent with prior Arizona Rulings and rulings from other jurisdictions to hold that Dowthard is applicable to judgments in habeas corpus proceedings. The major problem relates to the fact that not all habeas corpus proceedings arise out of criminal actions. If this Court were to hold that Dowthard applied only to habeas corpus proceedings arising out of criminal actions, then there would be, in effect, a double standard that would have to be applied to habeas corpus appeals depending upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. State
...corpus is not a criminal prosecution but a civil proceeding to test the legality of and correctness of detention. Application of Anderson, 6 Ariz.App. 563, 435 P.2d 70 (1967); Leonard v. Eyman, 1 Ariz.App. 593, 405 P.2d 903 (1965). There is no right to appointment of counsel in a civil proc......
-
Anderson, Application of
...in this case in which we suspended the appeal pending correction of the record by the lower court. This opinion is reported in 6 Ariz.App. 563, 435 P.2d 70 (1967). The record was perfected as contemplated by the opinion and our present concern is with the merits of the case. The original co......
-
Sims v. Ryan
...because the trial court did not issue its order in a signed minute entry or judgment. The State relies on Boies v. Anderson (In re Anderson), 6 Ariz.App. 563, 435 P.2d 70 (1967), an opinion by a divided panel of this court. We take jurisdiction despite the lack of a signed minute entry or j......
-
Douglas v. Shinn
... ... claim could be brought under either rule," but ... encouraged the court to treat the petition as an application ... for a writ of habeas corpus. The court agreed to do so, then ... denied the petition, determining that Douglas had waived his ... causes. Douglas is correct that a proceeding for a writ of ... habeas corpus is generally a civil matter. See In re ... Anderson, 6 Ariz.App. 563, 564-65 (1967). As the state ... points out, however, the Arizona Constitution allows the ... "superior court or any ... ...