State v. Richards
| Decision Date | 19 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CR,1 |
| Citation | 545 P.2d 1003,26 Ariz.App. 41 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Bessie Mae RICHARDS, Appellant. 1191. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The sole issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the death of the appellant in a criminal case after the appeal has been perfected, but prior to the rendition of an opinion in that appeal.
On June 6, 1975, the appellant, Bessie Mae Richards, entered a plea of guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated while her license was suspended, revoked or refused. A.R.S. § 28--692.02. She timely perfected an appeal from that judgment of guilt and the sentence imposed of suspension of sentence for one year on condition that she serve 60 days in the county jail. After the appeal was perfected and briefs filed in this court, but prior to submission of the matter to the court for consideration, the fact of her death was made a matter of record. The sole question thus presented is what is the affect of her death upon her appeal.
There is authority to the effect that the death of a criminal defendant pending appeal renders the appeal moot. See, Anno. Criminal Law--Moot Case, 9 A.L.R.3d 462, § 11. The generally conceded grounds for mootness are that in the event the judgment of conviction is affirmed, it is impossible of execution, and if the judgment is reversed, the accused is unavailable for a new trial. Neville v. State, 243 Ind. 28, 181 N.E.2d 638 (1962); State v. Sholiton, Ohio App., 70 Ohio Law Abst. 385, 128 N.E.2d 666 (1954).
Since Arizona has not spoken on this issue, it becomes our task to determine the effect of death upon the appeal itself. We agree that in cases where only the personal liberty of a defendant is involved, the death of the accused renders the appeal moot, for nothing on the appeal under those circumstances is going to affect that defendant. As was stated in State v. Kriechbaum, 219 Iowa 457, 258 N.W. 110 (1934): 'Death withdrew the defendant from the jurisdiction of the court.'
In this case we do not need to reach the issue of whether a fine or forfeiture of property based upon the prior conviction would require the same determination of mootness. Nor do we determine in a liberty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reed
...it is impossible of execution, and if the judgment is reversed, the accused is unavailable for a new trial." State v. Richards , 26 Ariz. App. 41, 41-42, 545 P.2d 1003 (1976). Richards , however, did not address "the effect of the dismissal of this appeal upon the underlying conviction appe......
-
State v. Griffin
...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 t......
-
State v. Griffin
...through its motion to dismiss appeal, brought to the court's attention the fact of appellant's death. Citing State v. Richards, 26 Ariz.App. 41, 545 P.2d 1003 (1976), appellee argued that the appeal was moot. In response, appellant's court-appointed counsel, the Maricopa County Public Defen......