State v. Evans, s. 5114
| Decision Date | 03 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | 5063,Nos. 5114,s. 5114 |
| Citation | 629 P.2d 989,129 Ariz. 153 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Charlie Lee EVANS, Willie Lee Richmond, Willie Luther Steelman, Appellees. STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Paul William JORDAN, John Henry Knapp, Loris McVay and Sylvester Smith, Appellants. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer, III, Chief Counsel, Crim. Div., Crane McClennen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for the State.
Richard Oseran, Pima County Public Defender, by Allen G. Minker, Robert Norgren, Asst. Public Defenders, Tucson, for Charlie Lee Evans et al.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by John Foreman, Deputy Maricopa County Public Defender, Phoenix, for Paul Williams Jordan et al.
Charles M. Sevilla, San Diego, Cal., on behalf of Cal. Attys. for Criminal Justice, Cal. Public Defenders Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Michael L. Altman, Ariz. State University, Richard J. Wilson, Director, Defender Div., Washington, D. C., on behalf of National Legal Aid and Defender Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Lewis & Roca by John P. Frank, Michael L. Cooper, Phoenix, for NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Ariz. Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.
The above named defendants were all sentenced to death after convictions for first degree murder with aggravating circumstances. Their convictions have been affirmed by this court. Each of the defendants was represented by either the Maricopa County Public Defender or the Pima County Public Defender.
The Attorney General and the Maricopa County Attorney filed motions in the superior court to prevent the Maricopa County Public Defender from representing the above defendants in federal court. The motions also sought to limit the public defender to representation of the defendants in state court only. Similar motions were filed by the Attorney General and the Pima County Attorney against the activities of the Pima County Public Defender.
The Superior Court of Maricopa County granted the motions of the Attorney General and the Maricopa County Attorney. The defendants filed a timely appeal (No. 5063).
The Superior Court of Pima County denied the motions of the prosecutors, and the Attorney General and the Pima County Attorney filed an appeal (No. 5114).
We ordered the appeals consolidated because they involved essentially the same issues and principles of law.
The State contends that the duties of the public defender do not include representation of defendants in federal proceedings. We agree. We find nothing in A.R.S. § 11-584 defining the duties of the public defender which would allow the public defender to represent indigent defendants in the federal court system. The statute enacted was meant to provide representation for indigents in the state court system. It was expected that the federal system would provide its own means for supplying representation for indigents in its court.
The federal courts are, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006(A)(g), authorized to appoint and compensate counsel for the representation of indigents seeking relief from state convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254.
Normally the foregoing would be sufficient to resolve the controversy, but the present status of the cases of the named defendants presents a different and more difficult problem. The defendants contend that neither of the superior courts had jurisdiction to consider the motions filed by the Attorney General and the County Attorneys; further, the defendants contend that the attorneys for the State have no standing to challenge the representation afforded them. Knapp v. Hardy, 111 Ariz. 107, 523 P.2d 1308 (1974).
It must be conceded that the superior court, prior to the filing of the motions by the prosecutors, had completed all proceedings applicable to the trial and sentence of the defendants. Any possible future proceedings in the superior court would be under Rule 32, Rules of Criminal Procedure dealing with post conviction remedies. Absent a Rule 32 proceeding, the jurisdiction of the superior court over the defendants had ceased. The superior court was without jurisdiction to act on the motions of the Attorney General and the County Attorneys.
In addition, the majority opinion in Knapp v. Hardy, supra, questions the authority of a prosecutor to challenge the selection of counsel for a defendant once the issue of indigency has been established.
The indigency status of the defendants in these matters is not questioned. Under Knapp, supra, it is very doubtful that the prosecutors had any standing to question the representation of the defendants. The Board of Supervisors, the body charged with establishing, employing and paying the Public Defender, appears to be the more appropriate party to complain of actions by the Public Defender which might be in excess of his authority. See A.R.S. §§ 11-581 & 582.
Because of the current legal status of the named defendants, we hold that the motions at issue filed by the Attorney General and the County Attorneys should have been denied; therefore, the order of the Superior Court of Pima County (No. 5114) is affirmed, and the order of the Superior Court of Maricopa County (No. 5063) concerning the motions of the prosecutors is reversed with directions to enter an order denying the motions.
In these cases, the defendants have each been convicted of first degree murder, sentenced to death, and have exhausted their state court appeals. They have now filed suits in the federal court asserting various breaches of federal law which they believe resulted in or at least influenced their convictions.
By statute A.R.S. § 11-584(A)(1), it is provided that the public defender shall on order of the court defend, advise and counsel an indigent defendant for "(a) Offenses triable in the superior, municipal or justice courts * * * " and "(e) Appeals to a higher court or courts." The suits filed in the federal court by defendants are not appeals to a higher court. Federal courts are courts of coordinate jurisdiction with state courts charged with the responsibility of enforcing federal laws. Covell v. Heyman, 111 U.S. 176, 4 S.Ct. 355, 358, 28 L.Ed. 390 (1884). I therefore agree that the statute § 11-584(A)(1) was designed to provide representation for indigents in the state court system.
I further am of the opinion that the attorney general has standing to challenge the representation by the public defenders in the federal courts. By statute A.R.S. § 41-193(A)(3), the Attorney General of Arizona is required to "represent the state in any action in a federal court * * *." As the representative of the interests of the state, it is my opinion that he may question the right of the public defender to act for these defendants at the state's expense in their attempts to obtain relief in the federal system.
I agree with the majority that these cases have progressed beyond being active state cases and that the prosecutors, state and county, have no standing to object at this stage in the cases to county defender attorneys representing these defendants before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States Supreme Court. If the Court's opinion had stopped there, I would have joined it. It did not, however. The opinion proceeded to gratuitously answer questions for future cases which I feel would be better dealt with when the facts of those cases are known. The dictum I refer to is:
"We find nothing in A.R.S. § 11-584 defining the duties of the public defender which would allow the public defender to represent indigent defendants in the federal system."
This portion of the opinion was not necessary for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pinal Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Georgini
...might be in excess of his authority.’ ” Smith v. Lewis, 157 Ariz. 510, 512, 759 P.2d 1314, 1316 (1988), quoting State v. Evans, 129 Ariz. 153, 154, 629 P.2d 989, 990 (1981) (alteration in Lewis ).2 Section 36–540 authorizes a court to order involuntary treatment, including hospitalization, ......
-
Smith v. Lewis
...DISCUSSION Standing We have previously considered the question of standing in State v. Evans, 129 Ariz. 153, 629 P.2d 989 (1981). In that case, the attorney general and two county attorneys filed motions in superior court to prevent county public defenders from representing death row inmate......
-
Campa v. Fleming
...in the city court, there is a conflict resulting in "no standing" and the appeal should be dismissed. We do not agree. State v. Evans, 129 Ariz. 153, 629 P.2d 989 (1981) (county attorney and attorney general have no standing to object to the public defender's representing clients in federal......