State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
| Decision Date | 13 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | CA-SA,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, ex rel. Roderick G. McDOUGALL, Phoenix City Attorney, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, the Honorable Gary E. Donahoe, a commissioner thereof, Respondent Judge, Anaroberta C. BLENDU, Real Party in Interest. 92-0261. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This case arises from a superior court order vacating a Phoenix city court's judgment against Anaroberta C. Blendu (defendant) in a civil traffic case. In vacating the judgment, the superior court found that the city's failure to file a responsive memorandum constituted a confession of error. The city brought this special action, seeking this court's ruling that it did not confess error by failing to file an appellate memorandum. In the exercise of our discretion, we accepted special action jurisdiction because the city lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. Ariz.R.P.Spec.Actions 1(a); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-120.21(A)(4) (1992). After accepting jurisdiction, we granted relief and indicated that this opinion would follow. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the city did not confess error by failing to file a responsive memorandum.
The facts and procedural history in this case are straightforward. The defendant received a civil traffic ticket for driving at a "speed not reasonable and prudent." The defendant denied guilt and proceeded to a civil hearing in a Phoenix city court at which she and the arresting officer testified. The officer testified that the defendant was driving at a speed in excess of 55 miles per hour (mph), that the posted speed limit in the area was 40 mph, that the roads were wet because it had been raining, and that, in his opinion, the defendant's speed was unreasonable. The defendant testified that she had looked at her speedometer and that she had been driving at a speed between 40 and 45 mph. The hearing officer found the defendant responsible for the traffic violation and imposed an $85 civil sanction.
The defendant appealed, submitting an appellate memorandum to superior court in which she recited the facts and asked the court to reverse judgment against her because she had not been driving at an excessive speed. The city did not file a responsive memorandum. The superior court commissioner presiding over the case set a filing date by which the city was to file a responsive memorandum and advised the city that failure to file a memorandum by the due date would be treated as a confession of error. After the city failed to file a responsive memorandum, the commissioner found that the city had confessed error because the defendant had raised a debatable issue regarding the speed at which she had been driving. The commissioner then vacated the city court's judgment and sanction and remanded the case for reversal. The city timely filed this special action.
The respondent in this action, the Maricopa County Superior Court, argues that Rule 38, Arizona Rules of Procedure for Civil Traffic Violation Cases, mandates that the city file an appellate memorandum. Rule 38 states, in pertinent part, "The appellee's memorandum shall be filed within twenty days after service of appellant's memorandum." Certainly, if the city files an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Skaggs, 2 CA-CR 2017-0032-PR
...its failure to file a compliant responsive brief could constitute a confession of error. See State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 174 Ariz. 450, 452, 850 P.2d 688, 690 (App. 1993). ...
-
IN RE 1996 NISSAN SENTRA
...that Day's statements were admissible. Such an omission can be considered a confession of error, see State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 174 Ariz. 450, 850 P.2d 688 (App.1993), and we deem it so Application of the Racketeering Statutes ¶ 8 The state next contends that "the trial cour......
-
State v. Rhodes
...that the judge intended by her comments to outline an alternative basis for the new trial. See State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 174 Ariz. 450, 452, 850 P.2d 688, 690 (App.1993) (noting that the appellate court may decline to consider a failure to file an answering brief as a confe......
-
State v. Solnicka
...Lopez v. Kearney ex rel. County of Pima, 222 Ariz. 133, ¶ 10, 213 P.3d 282, 285 (App. 2009); see State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 174 Ariz. 450, 452, 850 P.2d 688, 690 (App. 1993). Finally, to the extent Solnicka argues that the state has confessed error by failing to respond to s......