State v. Moore, Criminal 839
Decision Date | 16 June 1936 |
Docket Number | Criminal 839 |
Citation | 58 P.2d 752,48 Ariz. 16 |
Parties | STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, v. BOB MOORE, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Mr. F H. Lyman and Mr. James E. Nelson, for Appellant.
Messrs Baker & Whitney and Mr. Lawrence L. Howe, for Respondent.
Respondent was convicted in the city magistrate's court upon two separate complaints charging him with the violation of an ordinance of the city of Phoenix making it a misdemeanor to engage in the business of receiving, making or negotiating bets on horse races at tracks in or out of Arizona. He appealed to the superior court of Maricopa county, and that court sustained his demurrers to the complaints and dismissed the cases.
The city attorney of Phoenix has appealed on behalf of the state assigning the court's ruling on the demurrers and the orders of dismissal as error. The cases were consolidated for the purposes of the appeal.
While the questions raised and argued by counsel are very interesting, we cannot consider nor decide them, for the reason that the case is not under the statutes appealable. The right of appeal from the superior court to the Supreme Court of the state, where the case originates in a justice, police, or recorder's court, is not granted to the state, but to the defendant only. The statute so stating is section 5137, Revised Code of 1928, reading as follows:
It will be noted that this section, after granting the right of appeal to a defendant, goes on to say that there shall be no appeal except the ones granted. The only cases in which the state may appeal are those prosecuted by indictment or information, as enumerated in section 5136, Id., reading as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hansen
...express legislative authority” to the contrary. State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 280, 792 P.2d 741, 743 (1990) ; see State v. Moore, 48 Ariz. 16, 18, 58 P.2d 752, 752 (1936) (noting “right of appeal in criminal cases is not known to the common law”). ¶ 6 The state identifies § 13–4032(2) as ......
-
State ex rel. Nelson v. Jordan, 9480
...counter to this Court's own attitude that even the right of appeal exists only by force of the Constitution and statutes, State v. Moore, 48 Ariz. 16, 58 P.2d 752; State ex rel. Murphy v. Superior Court of Arizona in and for Pinal County, 25 Ariz. 226, 234, 215 P. 538, and in the absence of......
-
State v. Phelps, 5062
... ... Maricopa, to direct respondent to proceed with the trial of a ... specified criminal cause wherein an alternative writ was ... Alternative writ quashed ... Board of ... Supervisors, 2 Ariz. 248, 12 P. 730; Graham v ... Moore, 56 Ariz. 106, 105 P.2d 962; Dey v ... McAlister, 19 Ariz. 306, 169 P. 458; State v ... Valdez, ... ...
-
State v. Spitz
...case was prosecuted by Complaint. The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled on the exact contention now urged by the State. In State v. Moore, 48 Ariz. 16, 58 P.2d 752 (1936), in dismissing a purported appeal by the State, the court 'It will be noted that this section, (Section 5137, Revised Code......