Spronken v. City Court of City of Tucson, 2
| Decision Date | 30 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Parties | John Peter SPRONKEN, Petitioner/Appellee/Cross Appellant, v. CITY COURT OF the CITY OF TUCSON, The Honorable Thomas Welch, Presiding Magistrate; and The State of Arizona, Respondents/Appellants/Cross Appellees. 3902. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellee was convicted in city court of a class one misdemeanor, assault, resisting arrest and tampering with a motor vehicle. 1 Appellee filed a special action in superior court challenging the jurisdiction of the city court to try him on the assault charge and the resisting arrest charge. The superior court held that the city court had jurisdiction of the resisting arrest charge, but not the assault charge because the victim was a police officer. Appellants challenge the superior court's ruling on the assault charge. Appellee has filed a cross-appeal contending that the superior court erred in holding that the city court had jurisdiction over the resisting arrest charge and further erred in holding that he was not entitled to a jury trial on this charge in city court.
As for the jurisdiction of the city court over the offense of resisting arrest, charged as a misdemeanor in the city court, we have held in the case of Calloway v. City Court of City of Tucson, 129 Ariz. ---, 632 P.2d 266 (App.1981), that the city court possesses jurisdiction.
The city court does not have jurisdiction of a misdemeanor assault when the complaint alleges that the assault was committed upon a police officer in the discharge of his duties. City Court, etc. v. State ex rel. Baumert, 115 Ariz. 351, 565 P.2d 531 (App.1977). However, when, as in the instant case, the complaint does not allege that the assault was on a police officer in the discharge of his duties, the city court has jurisdiction even though the victim is a police officer discharging his duties. State ex rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court, etc., 120 Ariz. 341, 585 P.2d 1253 (App.1978). The superior court did not err in holding that appellee was not entitled to a jury trial on the offense of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hall
...submit to a breathalyzer, and to sign an implied consent form did not involve moral turpitude); cf. Soronken v. City Court of the City of Tucson, 130 Ariz. 62, 633 P.2d 1055 (Ct.App.1981) (offense of resisting arrest with maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or one thousand dollars, o......
-
State v. Le Noble
... ... No. 1 CA-CR 06-0705 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C ... ¶ 2 We review the facts in the light most favorable ... ¶ 15 In Spronken v. City Court of the City of Tucson, we reviewed ... ...
-
State v. City Court of City of Tucson, s. 2
... ... [157 Ariz. 602] crimes; and (3) whether the act involves moral turpitude. Rothweiler v. Superior Court, 100 Ariz. 37, 410 P.2d 479 (1966); State ex rel. Dean v. City Court of Tucson, 141 Ariz. 361, 362, 687 P.2d 369, 370 (App.1984); Spronken v. City Court of City of Tucson, 130 Ariz. 62, 63-64, 633 P.2d 1055, 1056-57 (App.1981). The supreme court has rejected the notion that a penalty of six months' incarceration and a $1000 fine are so serious as to require a jury trial. State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court, supra. The parties ... ...
- Laryea v. Sessions