State v. Robles, 1148
| Decision Date | 05 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1148,1148 |
| Citation | 88 Ariz. 253,355 P.2d 895 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Frank G. ROBLES, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Wade Church, Atty. Gen., Harry Ackerman, Pima County Atty., Jack G. Marks, City Atty., Jack T. Arnold, Asst. City Atty., Tucson, for appellee.
Frank G. Robles, Tucson, in pro. per.
This appeal is prosecuted by appellant Frank G. Robles (hereinafter designated as defendant) from a conviction, judgment and commitment of the superior court of Pima County, Arizona, findings him guilty of violating the election laws of the State of Arizona, a misdemeanor, and sentencing him to imprisonment in the Pima County jail for a period of 10 days from 8 a. m., March 25, 1959.
The facts are that defendants was charged in the city court of Tucson with the violation of A.R.S. § 16-862, making it a misdemeanor for any person, after voting, to remain inside the fifty-foot limits as fixed by the election marshall, by posting three notices in different directions from the entrance to the place in which the election is being held. This section prescribes the character of the notices to be posted and declares a violation of the statute to constitute a misdemeanor.
Defendant was found guilty by the city court which fixed his punishment at $75 fine of imprisonment in the city jail for a period of 15 days. Defendant then appealed to the superior court of Pima County with the result above mentioned from which judgment this appeal comes to us.
Defendant has presented several assignments of error for our consideration but under the circumstances of this case we are precluded under the provisions of A.R.S. § 22-375 from considering any of them except assignment No. 1, which is based upon the claim that A.R.S. § 16-862, is unconstitutional.
A.R.S. § 22-375 reads as follows
The present appeal does not involve the validity of any tax, impost, assessment, toll or municipal find. But it is asserted by defendant that A.R.S. § 16-862, is unconstitutional. The assignment itself states no ground upon which he claims this section to be unconstitutional. But he does argue in his brief (1) that it is vague to the extent that one cannot tell what it forbids and what acts it penalizes as crimes, (2) by implication defendant claims that said statute vests legislative powers in some administrative official, specifically the election marshal, who is charged in A.R.S. § 16-862, with the duty of placing certain signs furnished by the board of supervisors at the polling place 'approximately fifty feet, in different directions, from the entrance of the place in which the election is being held.' A.R.S. § 16-862 provides as follows:
'A. The board of supervisors shall furnish with the ballots for each polling place, three notices, printed on muslin in letters not less than two inches high, reading 'Fifty-foot limit'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County
...with the efficient handling of the voters by the election board and to prevent delay or intimidation of voters * * *.' State v. Robles, 88 Ariz. 253, 355 P.2d 895. It is petitioners' position that the statute does not expressly forbid the holding of concurrent elections, that there are no s......
- Hendrie Buick Co. v. Mack
-
State v. Spitz
...exclusively. State v. Jean, 98 Ariz. 375, 405 P.2d 808 (1965); State v. White, 92 Ariz. 306, 376 P.2d 771 (1962); State v. Robles, 88 Ariz. 253, 355 P.2d 895 (1960); Smith v. State, 24 Ariz. 161, 207 P. 363 At the time of oral argument the State urged that notwithstanding A.R.S. § 22--375, ......
-
State v. White
...to the trial de novo and does not involve the validity of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine or statute. State v. Robles, 88 Ariz. 253, 355 P.2d 895 (1960); State v. Guthrie, 66 Ariz. 41, 182 P.2d 109 (1947); A.R.S. § 22-375. In assignments of error Nos. 2, 3 and 4 defendant co......