Bruce v. State, No. 14825-PR
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | HOLOHAN; STRUCKMEYER |
| Citation | 126 Ariz. 271,614 P.2d 813 |
| Parties | Candace Lynn BRUCE, Appellee, v. STATE of Arizona, City Court of the City of Tucson, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 16 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 14825-PR |
Page 813
v.
STATE of Arizona, City Court of the City of Tucson, Appellant.
[126 Ariz. 272]
Page 814
Gale A. Dean, Tucson, for appellee.Frederick S. Dean, Tucson City Atty. by R. William Call, Asst. City Atty., Tucson, for appellant.
Andy Baumert, City Atty. by James R. Scorza, Asst. City Prosecutor, Phoenix, for City of Phoenix amicus curiae.
HOLOHAN, Vice Chief Justice.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether a jury trial is required where a defendant is charged with multiple offenses, arising out of the same event, each of which carries a potential sentence of six months or less, but potentially could exceed six months if the sentences were ordered served consecutively.
Defendant Candace Bruce was arrested and charged in the City Court of Tucson with one count of aggravated assault against a police officer and two additional counts of assault as to a second victim. If maximum sentences on each count are imposed consecutively the potential sentence would exceed six months.
Bruce appeared in city court and timely requested a jury trial. The request was denied and the defendant filed a special action petition in superior court. Relief was granted. The State appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Bruce v. State, 125 Ariz. 421, 610 P.2d 55 (App.1980). We granted the State's petition for review. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.24 and Rules 31.19, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.
Although the parties have not questioned the jurisdiction of the city court, an appellate court will consider jurisdictional questions sua sponte. Bates & Springer of Arizona, Inc. v. Friermood, 109 Ariz. 203, 204, 507 P.2d 668 (1973); Ronana v. First National Bank of Arizona, 90 Ariz. 341, 344, 367 P.2d 950 (1962). Jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Rojas v. Kimble, 89 Ariz. 276, 279, 361 P.2d 403 (1961). We have determined that the City Court of the City of Tucson did not have subject matter jurisdiction to try the defendant on the charge of aggravated assault on a police officer even though the charge was designated a misdemeanor by its filing in the city court. The City Court of the City of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert, 115 Ariz. 351, 352, 565 P.2d 531 (App.1977). The jurisdiction of justice of the peace courts and courts inferior to the superior court is as provided by law. Ariz.Const. art. 6, § 32. A.R.S. §§ 22-301 and 22-402(B) grant inferior courts jurisdiction over assault and battery offenses "not charged to have been committed upon a public officer in the discharge of his duties . . .." (Emphasis added.) The legislature has thus explicitly excluded charges brought under A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(5) from the subject matter jurisdiction of inferior courts. City Court v. State ex rel Baumert, supra.
Since the potential maximum sentence of the two remaining charges may exceed six months if consecutive sentences are imposed, we still reach the issue regarding defendant's right to a jury trial. We hold that where a defendant is charged with several petty offenses, factually related or arising out of a single event, there is no constitutional requirement of a jury trial but the actual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bennion, No. 15717
...for summary proceedings in some circumstances. E.g., Vallejos v. Barnhart, 102 N.M. 438, 697 P.2d 121, 123 (1985); Bruce v. State, 126 Ariz. 271, 614 P.2d 813, 814 (1980); State v. Young, 194 Neb. 544, 234 N.W.2d 196, 197-98 The test for what constitutes a "petty" offense in all these court......
-
Marquardt, Matter of, No. JQ-88-0002
...to minors); State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court [127 Ariz. 152, 618 P.2d 1078 (1980) ] (disorderly conduct); Bruce v. State, 126 Ariz. 271, 614 P.2d 813 (1980) (simple assault); Goldman v. Kautz, 111 Ariz. 431, 531 P.2d 1138 (1975) (simple assault and battery); O'Neill v. Mangum [103 Ar......
-
State ex rel. McDougall v. Strohson (Cantrell), No. CV-97-0118-SA
...any appreciable degree of moral turpitude in American society today." Goldman, 111 Ariz. at 433, 531 P.2d at 1140. In Bruce v. State, 126 Ariz. 271, 614 P.2d 813 (1980), the defendant was charged in city court with two counts of simple assault. The defendant argued that because she might re......
-
People v. DiLorenzo, BTP-11
...United States v. Lumumba, 598 F.Supp. 209 (S.D.New York 1984); New Jersey v. Owens, 54 N.J. 153, 254 A.2d 97 (1969); Bruce v. Arizona, 126 Ariz. 271, 614 P.2d 813 On the opposite end of the spectrum are a minority of courts which conclude that the right to a trial by jury is determined by t......
-
State v. Bennion, No. 15717
...for summary proceedings in some circumstances. E.g., Vallejos v. Barnhart, 102 N.M. 438, 697 P.2d 121, 123 (1985); Bruce v. State, 126 Ariz. 271, 614 P.2d 813, 814 (1980); State v. Young, 194 Neb. 544, 234 N.W.2d 196, 197-98 The test for what constitutes a "petty" offense in all these court......
-
Marquardt, Matter of, No. JQ-88-0002
...to minors); State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court [127 Ariz. 152, 618 P.2d 1078 (1980) ] (disorderly conduct); Bruce v. State, 126 Ariz. 271, 614 P.2d 813 (1980) (simple assault); Goldman v. Kautz, 111 Ariz. 431, 531 P.2d 1138 (1975) (simple assault and battery); O'Neill v. Mangum [103 Ar......
-
State ex rel. McDougall v. Strohson (Cantrell), No. CV-97-0118-SA
...any appreciable degree of moral turpitude in American society today." Goldman, 111 Ariz. at 433, 531 P.2d at 1140. In Bruce v. State, 126 Ariz. 271, 614 P.2d 813 (1980), the defendant was charged in city court with two counts of simple assault. The defendant argued that because she might re......
-
People v. DiLorenzo, BTP-11
...United States v. Lumumba, 598 F.Supp. 209 (S.D.New York 1984); New Jersey v. Owens, 54 N.J. 153, 254 A.2d 97 (1969); Bruce v. Arizona, 126 Ariz. 271, 614 P.2d 813 On the opposite end of the spectrum are a minority of courts which conclude that the right to a trial by jury is determined by t......