State v. Sheriff of Pima County, 8520
| Decision Date | 18 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 8520,8520 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF OF PIMA COUNTY, Supervisor, Arizona State Hospital, and Peter Benson Damskey, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Norman E. Green, County Atty., Pima County, by William J. Schafer, III, Asst. County Atty., for petitioner State of Arizona.
John R. McDonald and H. Earl Rogge, Jr., Tucson, for respondent Peter Benson Damskey.
The State of Arizona sought a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum in this Court to direct the Sheriff of Pima County and the Supervisor of the Arizona State Hospital, to release and transport Peter Damskey to the Justice of the Peace Court in Pima County for a preliminary examination on the charges of murder and assault with intent to commit murder pending before that Justice of the Peace Court. That writ was granted by this Court on October 6, 1964.
The pertinent facts are as follows: On May 20, 1964, a criminal complaint was filed against Peter Damskey charging him with murder and assault with intent to commit murder. Before the set time for his preliminary examination arrived, Damskey was committed on June 4, 1964 to the Arizona State Hospital in Phoenix by the Superior Court of Pima County upon a civil commitment pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 36-501 et seq. (1958). Two successive writs (habeas corpus ad prosequendum) issued below by the Superior Court of Pima County to require the appearance of Damskey at a preliminary examination on certain dates were appealed and suspended by the posting of supersedeas bonds pending the appeals. These two appeals are now moot since both of the dates have since passed. The State then sought relief in an original proceeding in this Court by way of writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
Contrary to the contention of the respondent Damskey, we feel that the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was a proper remedy in this case. Such a writ may be used by either the State or the accused to return the accused to the county where criminal charges have been filed for the purpose of a preliminary examination. Davis v. County Attorney, Tulsa County, 394 P.2d 243 (Okla.Crim.App.1964); Drew v. County Attorney, Tulsa County, 394 P.2d 246 (Okla.Crim.App.1964).
In addition, contrary to respondent Damskey's contention, this Court can issue such a writ since it has '(0)riginal jurisdiction of habeas corpus, and quo warranto, mandamus, injunction and other extraordinary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anonymous v. Superior Court In and For Pima County, 2
...petitioner's interests since a finding of civil incompetency does not serve to avoid criminal prosecution. State v. Sheriff of Pima County, 97 Ariz. 42, 396 P.2d 613 (1964); State v. Buchanan, 94 Ariz. 100, 381 P.2d 954 (1963); McWilliams v. Justice Court, Tucson Precinct No. 1, 5 Ariz.App.......
-
State v. Denton
...defense though he has been certified as incompetent and committed for the treatment of a mental illness. See also State v. Sheriff of Pima County, 97 Ariz. 42, 396 P.2d 613. Defendant's final argument is that the verdicts are contrary to the evidence. We have reviewed the record and find th......
-
State v. Loera
...a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to return the accused to the county where charges have been filed. State v. Sheriff of Pima County, 97 Ariz. 42, 43, 396 P.2d 613, 614 (1964); cf. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 355-56, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 1845, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978). A defendant ha......
-
Palmer v. State
...error in denial of petitioner's motion. State v. Heisler, supra; State v. Kostura, 98 Ariz. 186, 403 P.2d 283; cf. State v. Sheriff of Pima County, 97 Ariz. 42, 396 P.2d 613. Petitioner next contends that he was deprived of a fundamental right to be informed of the charges against him. Duri......