Campbell v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County

Decision Date28 July 1971
Docket NumberNo. 10445,10445
PartiesDavid H. CAMPBELL, Superintendent, Motor Vehicle Division, Arizona Highway Department, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, and the Honorable Howard V. Peterson, a Judge thereof, and Real Party in Interest, Sarkis DERADOURIAN, Respondents.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. by Donald O. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for petitioner.

O'Reilly, Pollock, Pizzo & Brash by Charles S. Pizzo, Phoenix, for real party in interest.

HAYS, Vice Chief Justice.

Respondent, Sarkis Deradourian (hereinafter referred to as respondent), was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona on September 23, 1970 for driving upon the public highways of Arizona while under the influence of intoxicating liquors in violation of A.R.S. § 28--692. Thereafter, on September 29, 1970, the arresting officer filed with the Motor Vehicle Division of the Arizona Highway Department an affidavit pursuant to A.R.S. § 28--691, subsec. D which stated that respondent had refused to submit to the chemical test of the breath prescribed by A.R.S. § 28--691, subsec. A at the time of his arrest. Based on this affidavit of the arresting officer, the petitioner, David H. Campbell as Superintendent of the Motor Vehicle Division of the Arizona Highway Department (hereinafter referred to as petitioner), issued an order of suspension of respondent's driver's license pursuant to A.R.S. § 28--691, subsec. D.

Upon receiving notice of his license suspension, respondent requested a hearing before the Motor Vehicle Division. On November 16, 1970 respondent was afforded the requested hearing and at the close of this hearing the order of suspension of respondent's driver's license was affirmed. Respondent then petitioned for a hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 28--451 with the respondent superior court for an additional review of the order of suspension.

Prior to the hearing in the respondent superior court, however, respondent, on February 4, 1971, changed his plea in the criminal action pending before the Traffic Court of the City of Phoenix from not guilty to guilty on the charge of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of A.R.S. § 28--692 and paid a fine as a result.

The following day, on February 5, 1971, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment in the respondent superior court and advanced the position in support of the motion that the plea of guilty entered the previous day in the criminal cause rendered moot the issue of respondent's consent to the breath test under the Implied Consent Law since the reason for giving the test, i.e. to determine the alcoholic content of respondent's blood, no longer existed.

The respondent court, on February 23, 1971, granted respondent's motion for summary judgment after a finding that upon a plea of guilty to the charge of driving while intoxicated, the suspension provided by the Implied Consent Law had no further application.

Thereafter, on March 22, 1971, petitioner filed with this court a Petition for Special Action and urged therein that the finding of the respondent court was an abuse of its descretion. We agree with the petitioner. In Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 479 P.2d 685 (1971), we indicated, citing Blow v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 164 N.W.2d 351, 352--353 (S.Ct.S.D. 1969), that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Sherrill v. Department of Transportation
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1990
    ...both refusing the test and DUI, and can be punished for two separate violations, one civil and one criminal. See Campbell v. Superior Court, 107 Ariz. 330, 487 P.2d 397 (1971). In addition, the outcome of one proceeding usually will not have any effect on the outcome of the other. See, e.g.......
  • Chavez v. Campbell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • July 2, 1973
    ...part by the Arizona Supreme Court in Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 479 P.2d 685 (1971), and in Campbell v. Superior Court, 107 Ariz. 330, 487 P.2d 397 (1971). In Campbell (I) it was held, inter alia, that a suspect does not have a right to an administrative hearing prior to the......
  • State v. Hooper
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1971
    ... ... Howard Gaines HOOPER, Appellant ... Supreme Court of Arizona. In Division ... July 30, 1971 ... Rehearing ... he appeared in court with counsel, at which time the county attorney filed an amended information containing one count ... , we will order that this case be returned to the Superior Court of Maricopa County, with directions that an ... ...
  • State ex rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court of City of Phoenix
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • March 21, 1978
    ...expire on the effective date of the suspension."3 Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 479 P.2d 685 (1971); Campbell v. Superior Court, 107 Ariz. 330, 487 P.2d 397 (1971).4 For a decision indicating that the doctrine of collateral estoppel might preclude the admission of evidence of d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT