Noble v. State, s. H--281--3 and H--671

Decision Date14 September 1973
Docket NumberNos. H--281--3 and H--671,s. H--281--3 and H--671
Citation514 P.2d 458,109 Ariz. 537
PartiesAndrew Milo NOBLE, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Arizona, Respondent. Dallas RICHIE, Jr., Petitioner, v. Harold CARDWELL, Warden, Respondent.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Andrew Milo Noble, Dallas Richie, Jr., in pro per.

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

These are petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed in this court on 7 September 1973 and 11 September 1973.

By this opinion we decide only one question and that is: Are these petitions, commenced after 1 September 1973, but based upon an initial criminal proceeding commenced prior to 1 September 1973, governed by Rule 32 of the new Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 1973, 17 A.R.S.?

Rule 32 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure 1973 sets forth the procedure to be followed in seeking post-conviction relief in the courts of the State of Arizona. Rule 32.3 reads as follows:

'This proceeding is a part of the original criminal action and not a separate action. It displaces all post-trial remedies except post-trial motions, appeal and Habeas corpus. If a petitioner applies for a writ of Habeas corpus in a court having jurisdiction of his person attacking the validity of his conviction or sentence, that court may under this rule transfer the cause to the court where the petitioner was convicted or sentenced and the latter court may treat it as a petition for relief under this rule.'

Rule 32.4 provides:

'a. Form, Filing and Service of Petition. A proceeding is Commenced by filing a petition with the clerk of the Superior Court in which the conviction occurred, on a form furnished by the clerk of that court. A petition may be filed at any time after the entry of judgment and sentence. It shall bear the caption of the original criminal action or actions to which it pertains. Upon its receipt, the clerk shall file a copy of the petition in the case file of each such original action and promptly send copies to the county attorney and the attorney general, noting the date and manner of sending in the record.' (Emphasis added)

However, Rule 1.5 of the rules reads as follows:

'These rules shall govern all criminal actions commenced on or after twelve o'clock midnight, 1 September 1973.'

The apprehension, adjudication, and disposition of a criminal matter is part of one continuous process from arrest to determination on appeal, and the new Rules of Criminal Procedure apply only to those cases...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Coleman v. State, 81-115
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 28 d1 Setembro d1 1981
    ...relief is civil in nature and independent of the criminal action. State v. Hannagan (Alaska 1977), 559 P.2d 1059; Noble v. State (1973), 109 Ariz. 537, 514 P.2d 458; State v. Richardson (1965), 194 Kan. 471, 399 P.2d 799; Smith v. State (1968), 79 N.M. 450, 444 P.2d 961; Noble v. Sigler (8t......
  • Harrison v. Norris
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 31 d3 Outubro d3 1990
    ...as anticipated criminal litigation. I respectfully dissent. 1 See also: State v. Hannagan, 559 P.2d 1059 (Alaska 1977); Noble v. State, 109 Ariz. 537, 514 P.2d 458 (1973); State v. Bearshield, 104 Idaho 676, 662 P.2d 548 (1983); State v. Jones, 30 Ill.App.3d 706, 332 N.E.2d 411 (1975); Kell......
  • State v. Rodriquez
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 23 d4 Dezembro d4 1976
    ...date of the new Rules, they are applicable to petitions for post-conviction relief filed after the effective date. Noble v. State, 109 Ariz. 537, 514 P.2d 458 (1973). Appellant was arraigned on December 28, 1972 and a plea of not guilty was entered on his behalf by the court. Appellant then......
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 25 d2 Fevereiro d2 1975
    ...revocation review procedures. However, consideration must be given to the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in Noble v. State, 109 Ariz. 537, 514 P.2d 458 (1973), which, to some extent, modifies the provisions of Rule 1.5, so as to make certain provisions of the 1973 rules applicable to......
  • 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