Litak v. Scott, 17125-SA
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Citation | 138 Ariz. 599,676 P.2d 631 |
| Docket Number | No. 17125-SA,17125-SA |
| Parties | Joanne G. LITAK, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Stephen SCOTT, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent, Andy Baumert, Attorney for the City of Phoenix, Additional Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1984 |
Page 631
v.
The Honorable Stephen SCOTT, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent,
Andy Baumert, Attorney for the City of Phoenix, Additional Respondent.
In Banc.
[138 Ariz. 600]
Page 632
George M. Sterling, Jr., Phoenix, for petitioner.Andy Baumert, Phoenix City Atty. by Aaron J. Carreon-Ainsa, Asst. City Prosecutor, Phoenix, for respondents.
CAMERON, Justice.
This is a petition for special action filed in this court by Joanne Litak, the petitioner, claiming that the Honorable Stephen Scott, Judge of the Superior Court, acted in excess of his jurisdiction in allowing the state to appeal from an order of the Phoenix City Court dismissing two counts in a complaint. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. Art. 6, § 5(3) and Rule 8, Arizona Rules for Special Actions.
The issues we must resolve on appeal are:
1. May the state appeal from an adverse ruling by a city or police court?
2. Did the state properly appeal from such ruling?
The facts necessary to resolve these issues follow. The petitioner was charged by complaint in Phoenix City Court with leaving the scene of an accident and driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI), A.R.S. §§ 28-665 and 28-692(A). She filed a motion to suppress certain evidence. On 19 April 1983 the city court granted the motion to suppress and dismissed the charge of leaving the scene of an accident. On 29 April the state moved to dismiss the DWI count. The court granted the motion. That same day, the state filed a notice of appeal which stated:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the State of Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4032(1), appeals from the Orders entered in Phoenix Municipal Court on April 19, 1983, and April 29, 1983 dismissing the above-numbered complaints.
The Superior Court denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss the appeal of the order of 19 April. The court then ruled that the evidence should not have been suppressed and that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for leaving the scene of an accident. The court remanded the matter for a hearing on whether the initial stop of the petitioner's[138 Ariz. 601]
Page 633
vehicle was a sham and a pretext. Petitioner brought this special action after her motion for rehearing was denied. We granted the petition for special action in order to resolve apparent conflicts in the statutes concerning the right of the state to appeal from orders of the city or justice court.MAY THE STATE APPEAL?
The first issue we must consider is whether the state may appeal to the Superior Court from the city court. We have stated that
absent a pertinent provision in the Arizona Constitution, the right of appeal exists only by statute. If there is no statute which provides that a judgment or order is appealable, the appellate courts of this state do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, In and For County of Maricopa, s. 18364-S
...granted the defense motion to dismiss. The State filed a timely notice of appeal to the superior court. A.R.S. § 13-4032; Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599, 676 P.2d 631 The superior court judge refused to set aside the dismissal, and the State challenged that ruling by filing a petition for sp......
-
State v. Feld, 1
...Chabler moved to dismiss Count I and the trial court granted the motion and the state appealed. See A.R.S. § 13-4032(1); Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599, 676 P.2d 631 (1984). C.A.T., Inc. is not a party to this appeal. Defendants moved to delay trial of the other counts pending resolution of ......
-
State v. Bejarano, 2 CA-CR 2008-0073.
...before trial commenced, the state cannot appeal the court's order under any other subsection of this statute. See Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599, 601, 676 P.2d 631, 633 (1984) (state may not appeal order granting its own motion to ¶ 5 Although we find Lelevier controlling, we acknowledge we ......
-
State v. Paredes, 2
...because the state's notice of appeal was flawed, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the state's appeal, citing Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599, 676 P.2d 631 (1984). The state's notice of appeal indicated that the state was appealing from "the Order confirming the dismissal of the indi......
-
State ex rel. Collins v. Superior Court, In and For County of Maricopa, s. 18364-S
...the defense motion to dismiss. The State filed a timely notice of appeal to the superior court. A.R.S. § 13-4032; Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599, 676 P.2d 631 (1984). The superior court judge refused to set aside the dismissal, and the State challenged that ruling by filing a petition for sp......
-
State v. Feld, 1
...moved to dismiss Count I and the trial court granted the motion and the state appealed. See A.R.S. § 13-4032(1); Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599, 676 P.2d 631 (1984). C.A.T., Inc. is not a party to this appeal. Defendants moved to delay trial of the other counts pending resolution of this app......
-
State v. Bejarano, 2 CA-CR 2008-0073.
...before trial commenced, the state cannot appeal the court's order under any other subsection of this statute. See Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599, 601, 676 P.2d 631, 633 (1984) (state may not appeal order granting its own motion to ¶ 5 Although we find Lelevier controlling, we acknowledge we ......
-
State v. Paredes, 2
...... of appeal was flawed, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the state's appeal, citing Litak v. Scott, 138 Ariz. 599, 676 P.2d 631 (1984). The state's notice of appeal indicated that the ......