State v. Court of Appeals, Division Two
| Decision Date | 14 July 1966 |
| Citation | 101 Ariz. 166,416 P.2d 599 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS of Arizona, DIVISION TWO, the Honorable Herbert F. Krucker, Chief Judge, the Honorable James D. Hathaway, Judge, the Honorable John F. Molloy, Judge, as Judges thereof, the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, the Honorable R. C. Stanford, Jr., Judge thereof, and Charles J. Carter, Real Party in Interest, respondents. No 8786. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Charles J. Carter, in pro. per.
The respondent, Charles Joseph Carter, appealed to the Court of Appeals, Division 1, from a conviction of two counts of burglary, second degree; two counts of burglary, first degree; and four counts of grand theft. On February 24, 1965, the Court of Appeals, Division 1, affirmed the conviction. State v. Carter, 1 Ariz.App. 57, 399 P.2d 191.
In the course of its opinion that court found that certain statements allegedly made by defendant were properly received in evidence as voluntary, extra-judicial oral statements of defendant describing how he committed the act.
Carter did not move the Court of Appeals, Division 1, for a rehearing and therefore did not petition this Court for a review. Being incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison at Florence, Arizona, Pinal County, Carter on November 1, 1965, petitioned the Court of Appeals, Division 2, for a writ of habeas corpus, charging that he was illegally imprisoned and restrained of his liberty in the Arizona State Penitentiary. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus had previously been denied by the Judge of the Superior Court, Pinal County, on October 18, 1965. Among other reasons for Carter's petition for writ of habeas corpus was that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to make a definite ruling as to the voluntariness or involuntariness of Carter's alleged statements.
After denying the Attorney General's motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Division 2 of the Court of Appeals directed the Attorney General to indicate whether there was an independent finding by the trial court as to the voluntariness of the confession and/or admission of respondent. In its directive to the Attorney General the Court of Appeals, Division 2, stated:
'* * * In the event that such response should disclose that an independent finding has not been made, it is the intention of this Court to issue a special order, without further hearing, directing the trial court to conduct a hearing on voluntariness as required by Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 391; 84 S.Ct. 1774, 1778; 12 L.Ed.2d 908.'
On April 26, 1966, the Court of Appeals, Division 2, found that the trial court did not make a specific determination on the record that the confessions and/or admissions were in fact voluntary and that this question was not raised on appeal. The court ordered a hearing be conducted before the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for Maricopa County to determine whether the confessions and/or admissions were, in fact, voluntary; that after the hearing the court make a written determination as to whether the confessions and/or admissions were in fact voluntary or involuntarily made; and, such findings by the court should be certified to the Court of Appeals, Division 2. After such certification the Court of Appeals, Division 2, stated it would make such further orders as it deemed necessary and proper.
On May 13, 1966 the Attorney General petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition, stating the Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction and the superior court had no jurisdiction to hold a hearing, as directed.
On May 18, 1966, this Court issued an alternative writ of prohibition, prohibiting the Court of Appeals, Division 2, from taking any further action, in order that we could consider the problems presented. The writ of habeas corpus may be used only to review matters affecting court's jurisdiction. State ex rel. Jones v. Superior Court, 78 Ariz. 367, 280 P.2d 691; State v. Morales, 90 Ariz. 11, 363 P.2d 606. The writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy to review irregularities or mistakes in a lower court unless they pertain to jurisdiction. Oswald v. Martin, 70 Ariz. 392, 222 P.2d 632; Smith v. Warren, 52 Ariz. 237, 80 P.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buccheri, Application of
...as such, demand consideration only to the extent that they raise questions which render the judgment void. State v. Court of Appeals, Division Two, 101 Ariz. 166, 416 P.2d 599 (1966); Franklin v. Eyman, 3 Ariz.App. 501, 415 P.2d 899 (1966); Applications of Oppenheimer, 95 Ariz. 292, 389 P.2......
-
Eyman v. Superior Court In and For Pinal County
...The appropriateness of appellate intervention by extraordinary writ is indicated by the cases of State v. Court of Appeals, Division Two, 101 Ariz. 166, 416 P.2d 599 (1966), and Buell v. Superior Court, 96 Ariz. 62, 391 P.2d 919 On August 15, 1968, Kenneth Dell Kelley, an inmate of the Ariz......
-
Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County
...it clear that the term does have a meaning which grants the high court powers which this court does not have. See State v. Court of Appeals, 101 Ariz. 166, 416 P.2d 599 (1966), wherein the term 'revisory' as used in Article 6, section 5(4) of the present constitution is given emphasis by it......
-
Morris v. Thornell
... ... No. CV-17-00926-PHX-DGC United States District Court, D. Arizona June 28, 2023 ... DEATH ... returns to state court to exhaust three claims in his habeas ... petition related to ... State v. Court of Appeals , 101 Ariz. 166, 168, 416 ... P.2d 599, 601 (1966). Rule 32.3(b), ... ...