State v. Grooms

Decision Date11 June 1985
Docket NumberNo. 1,CA-CR,1
Citation145 Ariz. 439,702 P.2d 260
PartiesSTATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. John David GROOMS, Appellant. 8227.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals
OPINION

BIRDSALL, Presiding Judge.

The appellant was convicted of custodial interference, A.R.S. § 13-1302, and was given an aggravated sentence of 1.875 years' imprisonment. He argues on appeal that the trial court should have directed a verdict since there was no evidence that the child had been "entrusted by authority of law to the custody of another person." He also contends that his sentence should not have been aggravated. We affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to the presumptive term of 1.5 years.

The appellant was married to the mother of a one-year-old boy, Jayson. She was in jail pending trial on a charge of driving while under the influence. She had been previously convicted of driving while under the influence the month before. During that ten days the mother was in jail, appellant did care for Jayson and his six-year-old brother, Michael, under the supervision of Child Protective Services. The mother contacted the appellant upon her second incarceration, asking him to arrange for bail and to pick up the children from school and day care.

Upon her release, the mother found a note left by the appellant, indicating he had done something to place Jayson where he would be safe, happy, and well cared for. Later the appellant told her he had found a Quaker family to give Jayson a good life. The appellant's note, and another earlier note, indicated his belief that the mother was an unfit parent. So far as our record shows, the appellant has never revealed Jayson's whereabouts.

The statute under which the appellant was convicted, A.R.S. § 13-1302, provides:

"A. A person commits custodial interference if, knowing or having reason to know that he has no legal right to do so, such person knowingly takes, entices or keeps from lawful custody any child less than eighteen years of age or incompetent, entrusted by authority of law to the custody of another person or institution.

B. Custodial interference is a class 6 felony unless the person taken from lawful custody is returned voluntarily by the defendant without physical injury prior to arrest in which case it is a class 1 misdemeanor."

A 1984 amendment did not become effective until after trial of this case. The amendment would not affect our disposition here.

The appellant argues that one cannot be guilty of custodial interference unless there has been some judicial act entrusting the custody of the child to a person or institution. We do not agree. The natural parents of a child are entitled to custody absent some order or its equivalent to the contrary. This is a legal right. LeRoy v. Odgers, 18 Ariz.App. 499, 503 P.2d 975 (1972). And see In Re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561, 131 Ariz. 25, 638 P.2d 692 (1981),...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • J.D.S. v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 5 Mayo 1994
    ...for a natural parent of a child to be entitled to custody of that child, absent an order to the contrary. State v. Grooms, 145 Ariz. 439, 440, 702 P.2d 260, 261 (App.1985). In the instant case, the father has never relinquished his parental rights, has never been declared incompetent, and h......
  • State v. Coleman
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 24 Febrero 1987
    ...the lawful custody of another; 2) knowing he had no right to do so; and 3) kept the child from lawful custody. See State v. Grooms, 145 Ariz. 439, 702 P.2d 260 (App.1985). The court stated these same elements as the elements of the offense at the change of plea. They are drawn from A.R.S. §......
  • Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-4974, Matter of
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 25 Enero 1990
    ...of its natural parents. The natural parents of a child are entitled to custody absent some order to the contrary. State v. Grooms, 145 Ariz. 439, 702 P.2d 260 (App.1985). A father has a right to co-equal custody of his child but not exclusive custody absent a court order to that effect. Sta......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT