State v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 06 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 4203-PR,4203-PR |
| Citation | 592 P.2d 372,121 Ariz. 538 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Robert C. GRIFFIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Babbitt, Former Atty. Gen., John A. LaSota, Jr., Former Atty. Gen., Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen by William J. Schafer, III, and Galen H. Wilkes, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Paul J. Prato, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
Robert C. Griffin, appellant, was tried and convicted of grand theft. His sentence was suspended for two years, and he was placed on probation on the conditions that he make restitution in the amount of $135.16 to the victim, and pay a fine of $220. Appellant paid the fine and restitution, and thereafter he filed notice of appeal from the conviction and sentence.
After the filing of briefs in the Court of Appeals, but prior to the submission of the case to that court for consideration, the appellant died. The Court of Appeals, over the opposition of appellant's counsel, granted the motion of the state to dismiss the appeal as moot. State v. Griffin, 121 Ariz. 540, 592 P.2d 374 (App.1978). We granted review. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated.
Counsel for the appellant contends that the dismissal of the appeal is proper if the amount of the fine and restitution are ordered paid to the estate of the appellant. Without such relief counsel contends that the appeal should be decided on the merits.
The great majority of jurisdictions which have considered the problem have ruled that death pending appellate review of a criminal conviction abates not only the appeal but also all proceedings had in the prosecution from its inception. Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481, 91 S.Ct. 858, 28 L.Ed.2d 200 (1971) 1; Crooker v. United States, 325 F.2d 318 (8th Cir. 1963); State v. Blake, 53 Ohio App.2d 101, 371 N.E.2d 843 (1977); See also, Annot. 83 A.L.R.2d 864 (1962). A few jurisdictions permit appellate review of a conviction after the death of the defendant, but generally such review has been specifically authorized by statute or rule of court. See City of Newark v. Pulverman, 12 N.J. 105, 95 A.2d 889 (1953); Bagley v. State, 122 So.2d 789 (Fla.App.1960); 83 A.L.R.2d 860.
The only case in Arizona dealing with this issue is State v. Richards, 26 Ariz.App. 41, 545 P.2d 1003 (1976). The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in Richards without ruling on the effect of the death of the defendant on the underlying conviction. That undecided issue is presented by the present case, and we hold that death pending appeal abates the appeal and the conviction.
The rationale for death abating the criminal conviction is based on the fact that the interests of the state in protection of society have been satisfied, the imposition of punishment is impossible, and collection of fines or forfeiture result in punishing innocent third parties. The death of the defendant renders enforcement of the judgment impossible. As one court stated, "Death withdrew the defendant from the jurisdiction of the court." State v. Kriechbaum, 219 Iowa 457, 465, 258 N.W. 110, 113 (1934). The state has no substantial interest in attempting to maintain the conviction so the entire criminal proceeding abates from the beginning.
Counsel for appellant points out that the defendant has paid the fine and made restitution. 2 He contends that abatement of the action should include an order for reimbursement of the fine and restitution, and he argues that merely abating the action will not give complete relief from the judgment of conviction.
The state contends that the provisions of 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 31.6 provide that a fine or restitution is stayed pending appeal. The action of the defendant in paying the fine would constitute a waiver of any claim for reimbursement. Whatever merit there may be in this contention, it should not be resolved in this case. With the death of the defendant there is no party to make any contentions or claims. In addition the payment of restitution was made to a third party whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hoxsie
...and SABERS, AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP, and GILBERTSON, JJ., participating. 1 Hartwell v. State, 423 P.2d 282 (Alaska 1967); State v. Griffin, 121 Ariz. 538, 592 P.2d 372 (1979); People v. Keister, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 (Cal.App.1996); People v. Dail, 22 Cal.2d 642, 140 P.2d 828 (1943); People v. Val......
-
Commonwealth v. Hernandez
...2018) (after Nelson, "can no longer say an order of restitution is an exception to [the abatement] rule").12 See State v. Griffin, 121 Ariz. 538, 539, 592 P.2d 372 (1979) (upon death of defendant, appeal dismissed, conviction vacated, indictment dismissed, but request for reimbursement of f......
-
Surland v. State, 8, September Term, 2005.
...interest of the surviving family in preserving, unstained, the memory of the deceased defendant or his reputation"); State v. Griffin, 121 Ariz. 538, 592 P.2d 372 (1979) (rational adopted in State v. Holland, supra); State v. Carter, 299 A.2d 891, 895 (Me. 1973) ("By such principle of abate......
-
People v. Peters
...1967) (abatement from the beginning because the presumption of innocence stands until the conclusion of an appeal); Arizona v. Griffin, 121 Ariz. 538, 592 P.2d 372 (1979) (conviction abates from the beginning because society's interest in protection has been satisfied and punishment is impo......