Armstrong v. City Court of City of Scottsdale
| Decision Date | 09 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CIV,1 |
| Citation | 118 Ariz. 593,578 P.2d 1022 |
| Parties | James R. ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. CITY COURT OF the CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, E. L. Boyle, Magistrate, City Prosecutor, City of Scottsdale; CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, Real Party in Interest, Appellees. 3942. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This case originated in the City Court of Scottsdale, where appellant Armstrong was charged with violating A.R.S. §§ 13-893(2) and 13-893(3). 1 The city court magistrate denied appellant's motion to suppress certain items of evidence. The appellant sought special action relief in the superior court, and appeals from the superior court's denial of that relief. See Rule 8(a), Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, 17A A.R.S. We affirm the superior court's dismissal of appellant's petition for special action.
The Judgment of the superior court simply contains a denial of special action relief, without specifying the reasons for the denial. In reviewing such a judgment, this court will uphold the trial court for any valid reason disclosed by the record. See Camacho v. Gardner, 6 Ariz.App. 590, 593, 435 P.2d 719, 722 (1967), modified on other grounds, 7 Ariz.App. 483, 441 P.2d 249 (1968), vacated on other grounds, 104 Ariz. 555, 456 P.2d 925 (1969); Harmon v. Hanson's Pump & Machine Works, Inc., 4 Ariz.App. 107, 109, 417 P.2d 741, 743 (1966). Our review of the record in this case convinces us that the superior court properly denied special action relief.
A court's decision to accept a special action is discretionary. See Wicks v. City of Tucson, 112 Ariz. 487, 488, 543 P.2d 1116, 1117 (1975). Special action relief is only appropriate if other remedies are not equally plain, speedy, and adequate. See Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima, 103 Ariz. 240, 242, 439 P.2d 811, 813 (1968); Caruso v. Superior Court, County of Pima, 100 Ariz. 167, 171, 412 P.2d 463, 465-66 (1966). Here, appellant has an adequate remedy by appeal to the superior court from the city court following the trial of his guilt or innocence. See A.R.S. § 12-124 (1956); Crouch v. Justice of Peace Court of Sixth Precinct, 7 Ariz.App. 460, 463, 440 P.2d 1000, 1003 (1968). If he is acquitted, no appeal is required. The expense and delay which appellant would experience in going through a trial and, if convicted, an appeal, does not, in our opinion, justify granting special action relief. See Caruso, supra. Under the circumstances, we find no error in the superior court's denial of special action relief in this case.
The denial of special action relief is affirmed, and the matter is remanded to the city court for trial or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Superior Court
...remedy available to the petitioner by appeal, Graham v. Ridge, 107 Ariz. 387, 489 P.2d 24 (1971); Armstrong v. City Court of Scottsdale, 118 Ariz. 593, 578 P.2d 1022 (App.1978). However, jurisdiction is frequently accepted when under no rule of law can a trial court's actions be justified, ......
-
Silver v. Rose
...justify issuing the writ. Caruso v. Superior Court, 100 Ariz. 167, 171, 412 P.2d 463, 466 (1966). Accord, Armstrong v. City Court of Scottsdale, 118 Ariz. 593, 578 P.2d 1022 (App.1978). The long delays currently experienced in our appellate system cause some degree of harm to most litigants......
-
Price v. Maxwell, 2
...Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima, 103 Ariz. 240, 439 P.2d 811 (1968) (overruled on other grounds); Armstrong v. City Court of Scottsdale, 118 Ariz. 593, 578 P.2d 1022 (App.1978). Where the complaint alleges that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, special action relie......
-
State ex rel. Dean v. City Court of City of Tucson
...decision for the superior court which will be upheld for any valid reason disclosed by the record. Armstrong v. City Court of City of Scottsdale, 118 Ariz. 593, 578 P.2d 1022 (App.1978). In this case, had a grant of special action review resulted in a finding that the city court abused its ......