In re Petition of Adams
| Decision Date | 08 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | Criminal 427 |
| Citation | 19 Ariz. 237,168 P. 641 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Petition of JOHN C. ADAMS for a Writ of Prohibition. J. C. ADAMS, Petitioner, v. R. C. STANFORD, Judge of the Superior Court of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
PETITION for Writ of Prohibition. Writ denied.
Mr Eugene S. Ives and Mr. Richard E. Sloan, for Petitioner.
Mr Wiley E. Jones, Attorney General, Mr. G. W. Harben and Mr. R Wm. Kramer, Assistant Attorneys General, Mr. Clyde M. Gandy, County Attorney, and Mr. G. S. Cunningham, Assistant County Attorney, for Respondent.
The county attorney of Maricopa county filed an information in the superior court of said county, charging the petitioner with the commission of a misdemeanor, viz., with the offense of keeping a disorderly house contrary to paragraph 317 of the Penal Code of Arizona of 1913. The defendant demurred to the jurisdiction of the court, alleging that, in and by virtue of paragraphs 19 and 1308 of the Penal Code of Arizona of 1913 justices' courts have jurisdiction over the offenses charged in said information, and that the superior court of Maricopa county has no jurisdiction whatever of said offenses. The petition sets forth that said court overruled said demurrers to the jurisdiction, and has announced its intention of proceeding to the trial of said information. The petitioner sets forth matters which he alleges will result in irreparable damage to himself and to others from a trial of said information in said court, for the recovery of which petitioner has no adequate remedy. The prayer is that this court issue its writ of prohibition directed against respondent, requiring the respondent to desist from taking any action whatever with respect to the said information.
The allegation presents two distinct propositions: First, the proposition that the justices' courts have jurisdiction over the offense denounced by paragraph 317 and charged in the information: second, that the superior courts have not jurisdiction over such offense.
That the justices' courts have jurisdiction, affirmatively conferred upon them, over the offense denounced as a misdemeanor by paragraph 317 of the Penal Code of 1913 is without question. Paragraphs 19 and 1308 of the Penal Code of Arizona of 1913; paragraphs 382, 1278, 385, and 1281 of the Civil Code of Arizona of 1913; section 9, article 6, State Constitution.
The second proposition presents more difficulties. The petitioner argues, in his brief submitted with the said petition, that since section 6 of article 6 of the state Constitution provides that the superior courts shall have original jurisdiction, among other cases, "in all criminal cases amounting to felony, and in all cases of misdemeanor not otherwise provided for by law," and that jurisdiction over misdemeanors punishable by both fine and imprisonment has been conferred on justices' courts, such cases so punishable are otherwise provided for by law, and, as a consequence, the superior court has not jurisdiction over them, relying upon paragraph 338 of the Civil Code of Arizona of 1913. Paragraph 338 of the Civil Code of Arizona of 1913, following the declaration of paragraph 337 that -- proceeds to define the first kind of jurisdiction, with regard to criminal cases, as follows:
"The original jurisdiction of the superior courts shall extend . . . to all criminal cases amounting to a felony; provided that the superior courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the justice courts . . . of misdemeanors where the penalty does not exceed a fine of three hundred dollars or imprisonment for six months."
The construction the petitioner places upon this language in the light of the constitutional provision, supra, is to limit the jurisdiction of the superior courts in misdemeanor cases to such cases only as are punishable by a fine not exceeding $300, or imprisonment not more than six months; and that such jurisdiction is concurrent with the justices' courts, or, in other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loveland v. State
... ... was not held ... The ... same question was presented to this court in the case of ... Adams v. Stanford, Judge, Superior Court, ... etc., 19 Ariz. 237, 240, 168 P. 641, 642, and after ... considering section 6, article 6 of the Arizona ... ...
-
State ex rel. Ronan v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 8340
...is an original civil action in the superior court. Regarding the superior court's original jurisdiction, we stated in In re Adams, 19 Ariz. 237, 240, 168 P. 641: 'The superior courts have original jurisdiction in all cases and of all proceedings in which jurisdiction shall not have been by ......
-
Sheridan v. Superior Court In and For Pinal County
...over every misdemeanor when the same is prosecuted by indictment or information presented to such court.' See also Adams v. Stanford, 19 Ariz. 237, 168 P. 641 (1917). There is no dispute of the fact that the criminal proceeding against petitioner was instituted in the Pinal County Superior ......
-
State v. Bennett, 1014
...adversely to appellee's contention in language so clear that a further discussion of the question would be superfluous. See In re Adams 19 Ariz. 237, 168 P. 641; Loveland v. State, 53 Ariz, 131, 86 P.2d Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views here......