State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County

• Decision Date: 14 April 1966
• Docket Number: No. 8732,8732
• Citation: 100 Ariz. 236,413 P.2d 264
• Parties: STATE of Arizona ex rel. Robert K. CORBIN, County Attorney for Maricopa County, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Edwin Thurston, Judge thereof, John Jesseman Dickinson and R. Jay Allison, real parties in interest, Respondents.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 264

413 P.2d 264

100 Ariz. 236

STATE of Arizona ex rel. Robert K. CORBIN, CountyAttorney for Maricopa County, Petitioner, v.The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Edwin Thurston, Judge thereof, John Jesseman Dickinson and R. Jay Allison, real parties in interest, Respondents.

No. 8732.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division.

April 14, 1966.

Modified on Rehearing May 19, 1966. See 414 P.2d 738.

Robert K. Corbin, Maricopa County Atty., by Robert A. Hertzberg, Deputy County Atty., for petitioner.

David C. Schutter, of Lewis, Roca, Scoville, Beauchamp & Linton, Phoenix, for respondents.

McFARLAND, Justice:

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Honorable Edwin Thurston, Judge of the Superior Court, Maricopa County, granting a petition for a writ of prohibition, which stayed a preliminary examination in a felony case.

A criminal complaint, No. 9974, was filed in the Northeast Phoenix Justice Precinct, Maricopa County, September 21, 1965, charging respondents, real parties in interest, John Jesseman Dickinson and R. Jay Allison, with a felony, obstructing justice, in violation of A.R.S. § 13--541.The alleged felony occurred within the Tolleson Justice Precinct, Maricopa County.A preliminary hearing was set for November 22, 1965, before the Honorable Charles F. Coppock, Justice of the Peace, Northeast Phoenix Precinct.

On November 22, 1965, prior to the preliminary hearing, respondent real parties in interest filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the Superior Court, Maricopa County, seeking prohibition of the preliminary hearing before Justice of the Peace Coppock, and requiring him to transfer the matter to the Tolleson Justice Precinct.Judge Thurston ordered the writ to issue which prohibited Justice of the Peace Coppock from 'Holding a preliminary examination in criminal cause No. 9974, or any other matter involving the petitioners, John Jesseman Dickinson and R. Jay Allison, which has arisen or may arise in a precinct other than Northeast Phoenix, except to transfer any such matter to the appropriate precinct.'

Petitioner filed this writ of certiorari to review the proceedings, alleging that the jurisdiction of magistrates to hold preliminary hearings extends to any felony which occurs within the county.If petitioner's contentions are correct then the respondentsuperior court exceeded its jurisdiction.

The question, therefore, is whether the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, when acting as a committing magistrate, is limited to felonies committed within the boundaries of his precinct.The answer to this question is found in examination of the Constitution, the statutes, and rules of criminal procedure relating to justice courts.The Constitution of the State of Arizona, Art. VI, Sec. 1, as amended¹, vests the judicial power of the state in an integrated judicial department which includes justice courts;Sec. 30 provides that such courts are not courts of record; and Sec. 32 that their number and jurisdiction shall be provided by law.Sec. 32 sets forth the jurisdiction of justice courts:

'The civil jurisdiction of courts inferior to the superior court and of justice courts shall not exceed the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.Criminal jurisdiction shall be limited to misdemeanors. * * *'

Art. II, Sec. 30, of the Constitution, relating to preliminary examinations, states:

'No person shall be prosecuted criminally in any court of record for felony or misdemeanor, otherwise than by information or indictment; no person shall be prosecuted for felony by information without having had a preliminary examination before a magistrate or having waived such preliminary examination.'

Respondents contend that the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in felonies is limited to offenses committed within the respective precincts by A.R.S. § 22--301.This section in no way refers to the holding of preliminary examinations before a magistrate in felony cases, but merely sets forth a list of the offenses triable before justices of the peace when said offenses are committed within the respective precincts.

A.R.S. § 22--201, as amended, sets forth the jurisdiction of justice courts in civil cases, and A.R.S. § 22--202 their venue in civil cases, but under neither the Constitution nor these sections of A.R.S. is the jurisdiction of an examining magistrate limited to offenses committed within his precinct.It is governed by provisions of Rule 1,Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., which provides:

'A.All criminal actions and proceedings brought before any magistrate for a public offense, triable within the county, shall be commenced by complaint, in writing, under oath, setting forth the offense charged, with such particulars of time, place, person and property as to enable the defendant to understand distinctly the character of the offense complained of.'

It will be noted that a complaint may be filed before any magistrate ² for a public offense triable within the county.The rules then provide the procedure for the issuing of the warrant of arrest, and for the bringing of the person against whom the complaint was made before the magistrate issuing the warrant, or, if he is absent or unable to act, before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the same county.³The question then is whether when this procedure is followed the magistrate before whom the complaint is filed has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary examination.

The only exception to this procedure is provided when an arrest is made without a warrant.A.R.S. § 13--1418 provides that the officer who has made the arrest shall without unnecessary delay take the person arrested before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the arrest occurs, and shall make the complaint before that magistrate; however, in the instant case, an arrest was not made without a warrant, but after a complaint had been filed and the warrant issued thereon.

It is clear that Rule 1,Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., specifically provides that proceedings may be commenced by a complaint before any magistrate and the only limitation provided for therein is that the offense be 'triable within the county.'Upon arrest under a warrant, the defendant must be taken without delay before the magistrate who issued the warrant.A.R.S. § 13--1417;Chitwood v. Eyman, 74 Ariz. 334, 248 P.2d 884.Rule 16 et seq., Rules of Crim. Proced., 17 A.R.S., sets forth the procedure for the preliminary hearing before the magistrate who issued the warrant.

State v. Griffin, 58 Ariz. 187, 118 P.2d 676, was an appeal from the granting of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court which ordered the discharge of the petitioner from incarceration in the Maricopa County Jail.A complaint had been filed in justice court, East Phoenix Precinct, Maricopa County, charging the petitioner with open and notorious cohabitation in Wickenburg Precinct, Maricopa County.The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the offense was only a misdemeanor, thus the complaint could only be filed in Wickenburg Precinct.This court stated:

'We come then to a consideration of the case on the merits.If the offense charged is a felony, the superior court erred in granting the writ; if it is a misdemeanor, its action was correct. * * *

'There can be no question that section 4628, supra, explicitly and beyond doubt makes the crime of open and notorious cohabitation a felony.The complaint in the present case charges an offense under that section and, such being the case, it might be filed in any precinct in the county.'58 Ariz. at 189, 118 P.2d at 677.

We set aside the order of the superior court, and remanded the case with instructions to quash the writ of habeas corpus.

Other states have not limited the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, when sitting as committing magistrates, to the precincts in which they are elected.In California the criminal jurisdiction of justice courts extends to misdemeanors where the offense charged was committed within the county.13 Cal.Jur.2dCourts, § 178.With respect to the holding of preliminary examinations, any magistrate in the county where the offense was committed--including, by statute, a justice of the peace--and before whom the defendant is brought, has jurisdiction to hold such an examination.West's Ann.Penal Code§ 808;People v. Jones, 221 Cal.App.2d 619, 34 Cal.Rptr. 618;People v. Kepford, 10 Cal.App.2d 128, 51 P.2d 429;People v. Calkins, 8 Cal.App.2d 251, 47 P.2d 544;People v. Van Zandt, 123 Cal.App. 520, 11 P.2d 645.

Texas, as Arizona, places criminal jurisdiction of its justice courts over misdemeanors within the precinct of the respective...