State v. Noel
Citation | 3 Ariz.App. 313,414 P.2d 162 |
Decision Date | 13 May 1966 |
Docket Number | CA-CR |
Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. James NOEL, JR., Appellee. no. 251. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Norman E. Green, Pima County Atty., William J. Schafer, III, Deputy County Atty., Pima County, Horton C. Weiss, Deputy County Atty., Pima County, Tucson, for appellant.
Dunseath, Stubbs & Burch, by Dean Burch, Tucson, for appellee.
An information was filed on August 27 1965, in the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, charging the defendant (appellee herein), James Noel, Jr., with the crime of possession of a pistol, under the provisions of A.R.S. § 13--919. The facts are not disputed. Briefly, the defendant had been sentenced to the Arizona State Prison for robbery in June 1960, completed his prison term, and was discharged from the prison. Thereafter defendant purchased a pistol in a store in Tucson, Arizona, and an information was thereafter filed, the charging portion reading as follows:
'* * * That on or about the 6th day of April, 1965, an in Pima County, Arizona and before the filing of this Information, the said James Noel, Jr., having previously been convicted of the crime of Robbery on or about the 30th day of June, 1960, in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Pima, did have in his possession a .22 caliber pistol, six-shot Vestpocket brand, all in violation of A.R.S. § 13--919.'
A motion to quash the information was filed and granted and the State takes this appeal.
Appellee concedes that in fairness tot he trial court the sole basis for granting the motion to quash was that the court held that the defendant had, by law, regained full status as a citizen. The only question to be decided by the court is whether or not the court had jurisdiction over the defendant by virtue of the defendant's status, having served his term for the prior conviction. The statute in question, A.R.S. § 13--919, in part reads as follows:
(Emphasis supplied)
It is necessary also to consider the provisions of another statute of this state, which is in pari materia, A.R.S. § 13--1653, which provides as follows:
'
(Emphasis supplied)
As noted, we are confronted with the issue of interpreting the term 'regained full status as a citizen', as contained in A.R.S. § 13--919. We find no statutory procedure for the restoration of 'full status as a citizen' other than by a pardon. No pardon has been sought or proceeding taken to secure a pardon.
We must consider the constitutionality of the statute, its purpose and the intention of the legislature in enacting A.R.S. § 13--919. The constitutionality of statutes of this nature has been upheld in decisions of the federal courts, as well as in state courts. It has been held that the Federal Fire Arms Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 902(a), (f) does not violate the United States Constitution (1) by infringing the right of people to keep and bear arms; (2) does not deny due process of law; (3) as an ex post facto law as applied to one who has been convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment prior to the passage of the Act on the grounds that it imposes an additional penalty for such crime. Cases v. United States, 1 Cir., 131 F.2d 916 (1942), cert. denied 63 S.Ct. 1431, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943). See also Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 312 F.2d 119 (1963); United States v. Lee, 227 F.Supp. 450 (D.N.Dak.1964). Davis v. State, 377 P.2d 226 (Okl.Cr.1962); Renfro v. State, 372 P.2d 45 (Okl.Cr.1962); State v. Robinson, 217 Or. 612, 343 P.2d 886 (1959); Pettus v. Cranor, 41 Wash.2d 567, 250 P.2d 542 (1952), cert. denied 345 U.S. 967, 73 S.Ct. 954, 97 L.Ed. 1385 (1953); People v. Garcia, 97 Cal.App.2d 733, 218 P.2d 837 (1950); State v. Krantz, 24 Wash.2d 350, 164 P.2d 453 (1945); State v. Tully, 198 Wash. 605, 89 P.2d 517 (1939); People v. James, 71 Cal.App. 374, 235 P. 81 (1925).
The purpose and intent of the legislature in enacting A.R.S. 13--919 appears reasonably clear. The statute is obviously intended to protect the public from the potential danger incident to the possession of a pistol by a person who has been previously convicted of a crime of violence as defined in this statute. It also appears reasonably clear that the legislature intended such public protection to continue by proscribing certain felons or ex-felons from possessing a pistol until such time as they have 'regained full status as a citizen'.
The phrase 'full status as a citizen' includes much more than just enjoyment of civil rights. There are many aspects and rights of citizenship which are denied the convicted felon by virtue of specific statutory provisions. Some of these are:
1. The right to vote, Art. VII, § 2, Constitution of State of Arizona, A.R.S.
2. A Beauty Culture Certificate, A.R.S. § 32--553.
3. Certificate as a Certified Public Accountant, A.R.S. § 32--741.
4. Jury duty, Criminal Rule 219, 17 A.R.S. and A.R.S. § 21--201.
5. Contractors License, A.R.S. § 32--1154.
6. Being a Dental Board Member, A.R.S. § 32--1204.
7. Dentist's License, A.R.S. § 32--1263.
8. Nursing License, A.R.S. § 32--1663.
9. Pharmacist's License, A.R.S. § 32--1927.
10. Real Estate License, A.R.S. § 32--2153.
11. The right to hold public office, A.R.S. § 38--291.
12. Veterinarian License, A.R.S. § 32--2241.
13. Practice of Law, A.R.S. §§ 32--267, 32--272, 32--273.
An interesting comparison is the Florida statute, § 790.23, F.S.A. which provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Griffin
...of firearms by those who, because of prior felony convictions, were unfit to be entrusted with any firearm"); cf. State v. Noel, 3 Ariz.App. 313, 315, 414 P.2d 162, 164 (1966) (precursor statute to § 13-3102 did not violate ex post facto prohibition in light of legislature's power to protec......
-
State v. Friel
...(La.App.1983); State v. Williams, 358 So.2d 943, 946 (La.1978); Carfield v. State, 649 P.2d 865 (Wyo.1982). See also State v. Noel, 3 Ariz.App. 313, 414 P.2d 162 (1966) (statute prohibits convicted felon's possessing a pistol); Eary v. Commonwealth, 659 S.W.2d 198 (Ky.1983) (statute prohibi......
-
State v. Parker
...of the crime of misconduct involving weapons. Arizona courts have upheld this statute as constitutional. State v. Noel, 3 Ariz. App. 313, 315, 414 P.2d 162, 164 (App. 1966); State v. Rascon, 110 Ariz. 338, 339, 519 P.2d 37, 38 (1974). Furthermore, statutes of this type have been deemed cons......
-
State v. Kelly
...or her right to possess a firearm has been restored in a prosecution under § 13-3101(A)(6)(b). ¶ 7 The state relies on State v. Noel, 3 Ariz.App. 313, 414 P.2d 162 (1966), in which this court addressed the identical issue under a predecessor statute, former A.R.S. § 13-919, which, as reprod......
-
Why can't Martha Stewart have a gun?
...such case was Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165 (1871). (61.) 1930 HANDBOOK, supra note 47, at 569. (62.) See State v. Noel, 414 P.2d 162 (Ariz. App. 1966). In 1932, the Governor of New York (Franklin Roosevelt) vetoed the 1930 Act as too permissive--which it was if one's standard w......