Miller v. Heller, 5156
| Citation | 68 Ariz. 352,206 P.2d 569 |
| Decision Date | 23 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | 5156 |
| Parties | MILLER v. HELLER |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
Appeal from Superior Court, Yavapai County; W. E. Patterson, Judge.
Prohibition proceeding by Lloyd E. Heller against P. H. Miller, recorder of the Recorder's Court of the City of Prescott, a municipal corporation. From an order granting the writ of prohibition, the recorder appeals.
Order affirmed.
Charles E. McDaniels, and John R. Franks, Prescott, for appellant.
Byrne & Byrne, Prescott, for appellee.
Phelps Justice. Udall, Stanford and Deconcini, JJ., and Russell Superior Judge, concurring. Chief Justice LaPrade being ill the Honorable H. L. Russell, Judge of the Superior Court of Coconino County was called to sit in his stead.
The above entitled cause comes to this court on an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Yavapai County granting a writ of prohibition against appellant P. H. Miller, Judge of the Recorder's Court of the city of Prescott prohibiting him from proceeding further in the criminal case of The Mayor and Common Council of the City of Prescott v. Lloyd E. Heller. The defendant in that case is charged in said proceedings with the violation of section 66-403, A.C.A. 1939, relating to reckless driving on a public highway. The record does not disclose upon what ground the writ was made permanent.
Appellant has presented two assignments of error, the first being that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the writ of prohibition upon the ground that the Recorder's Court of the city of Prescott had jurisdiction to try the case in question. Second, that the trial court erred in making its writ of prohibition permanent upon the same ground. The primary question then is, does the Recorder's Court of the city of Prescott have jurisdiction under the law as it now stands to try a person charged with reckless driving under the provisions of section 66-403, A.C.A. 1939, hereinafter set forth?
As incident to this issue and arising out of it there is the further question: Conceding that the Recorder's Court does have jurisdiction to try said cause, may it be prosecuted in the name of the Mayor and Common Council of the city of Prescott as provided in section 12 of article 5 of the charter? The answer to these questions must be found in the pertinent provisions of the statutes and constitution hereinafter set forth.
The facts are that the city of Prescott was incorporated by a special act of the territorial legislature of Arizona in 1883, Ch. 37, Acts of 1883, 12th Ter.Leg. The act itself constitutes the charter of said city of Prescott under which it has continued to function until the present time.
The act incorporating said city of Prescott was approved on February 27, 1883. Shortly thereafter the legislature evidently discovered that it had failed to expressly create a Recorder's Court for the city in said charter although it had fully defined its jurisdiction, powers and authority therein. Therefore on March the 3rd, 1883, Ch. 49, Acts of 1883, 12th Ter.Leg., it approved what it denominated an amendment or supplement to the original act, creating a Recorder's Court and expressly gave to it the same jurisdiction in criminal matters as were then or may thereafter be conferred on justices of the peace and justice courts. Sections 10 and 11 of article 5 of the charter, having already conferred jurisdiction upon said Recorder's Court the supplemental act did not have the effect of conferring further jurisdiction upon it. Section 10, supra, provides in part as follows: "The Recorder's Court of said city as to all offenses committed within such limits, to which the jurisdiction of said Court by this Act is declared to extend, whether against the laws of the Territory, or the ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations of this city, shall have the same jurisdiction, power and authority as is now or may be hereafter conferred upon Justices of the Peace, or Justices' Courts, in and for said townships whereof said city may form a whole or a part, * * *."
The Congress of the United States in 1886 passed what is known as the Harrison Act. Section 1 thereof, 48 U.S.C.A. § 1471, prohibited the legislatures of territories from passing local or special laws relating to certain subject matters named therein and, insofar as material here, it prohibited the legislature of the territory of Arizona from thereafter
(b) "Regulating the jurisdiction and duties of justices of the peace, police magistrates, and constables. * * *"
(c) "Incorporating cities, towns, or villages, or changing or amending the charter of any town, city, or village."
In 1891 by an act of the territorial legislature of Arizona, No. 28, sec. 1, Acts of 1891, 16th Ter.Leg., the following law was passed:
Section 1939 of the 1913 Revised Statutes of Arizona created and established a police court for each of the incorporated cities and towns incorporated under the general laws of the state giving it jurisdiction of cases arising under the ordinances of such city or town.
Section 438, R.C.A. 1928, provides in part that: "* * * There is hereby established for each of the cities and towns, incorporated under the general laws of this state, a police court * * *."
giving to it jurisdiction of all cases arising under the ordinances of the city or town in which it is established and concurrent jurisdiction with justices of the peace in the precincts where said city is established over all violations of the laws of the state committed within the limits of said precinct, etc. Section 438, R.C.A. 1928, became section 16-1101, A.C.A. 1939, and was revised to read:
In 1946 the legislature again amended this section to read as follows: Chap. 4, sec. 1, 2d S.S., 1946.
Article 4, part 2, section 19(17) of the constitution of Arizona prohibits amendment of a city charter by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Uriarte, 1 CA-CR 97-0351.
...court rules will yield in the presence of "a specific constitutional provision affecting the matter."); see also Miller v. Heller, 68 Ariz. 352, 357, 206 P.2d 569, 573 (1949) (Other than the federal constitution, the state constitution is supreme.). Thus, a parent is permitted to attend tri......
-
Selective Life Ins. Co. v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
...so, we are bound to uphold the Arizona Constitution, and the spirit and purpose of that instrument may not be defeated. Miller v. Holler, 68 Ariz. 352, 206 P.2d 569; State ex rel. Morrison v. Nabours, 79 Ariz. 240, 286 P.2d This court has on many occasions recognized the unique nature of th......
-
State v. Patel
...provisions must fall.’ " W. Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale , 168 Ariz. 426, 430–31, 814 P.2d 767 (1991) (quoting Miller v. Heller, 68 Ariz. 352, 357, 206 P.2d 569 (1949) ); see also State v. Lamberton , 183 Ariz. 47, 50, 899 P.2d 939 (1995) (stating that "the implementing statutes and [......
-
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County
...for these 'charter' cities there was little, if any, jurisdiction vested by the legislature in municipal courts. Miller v. Heller, 68 Ariz. 352, 354, 206 P.2d 569 [1949]. Under the charters of the cities of Phoenix, Prescott and Tombstone, the jurisdiction, power and authority of the judge ......