Tsipai v. State
Decision Date | 20 June 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CIV,1 |
Citation | 8 Ariz.App. 3,442 P.2d 167 |
Parties | Danny TSIPAI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Arizona, Appellee. 560. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Kenneth J. Lincoln, Flagstaff, for appellant.
Larry E. Mills, City Atty., Flagstaff, Richard K. Mangum, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.
This appeal brings into question whether there is a right to a trial by jury in a criminal prosecution for an alleged violation of a state statute in a municipal police court.
The appellant is charged with a violation of A.R.S. § 4--244(9), as amended, reading as follows:
'It is unlawful:
The penalty for a violation of this provision is a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $300, imprisonment in the county jail for not less than thirty days nor more than six months, or both. A.R.S. § 4--246.
The appellant demanded a jury trial in the municipal court and it was denied to him. Thereafter, he applied for a writ of prohibition in the superior court and this also was denied. This appeal follows. The denial of a writ of prohibition in the superior court is an appealable order. See State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel, 84 Ariz. 223, 326 P.2d 348 (1958) ( ); Dotseth v. Justice Court, Tucson, Precinct No. One, 5 Ariz.App. 424, 427 P.2d 558 (1967); Peterson v. Jacobson, 2 Ariz.App. 593, 411 P.2d 31 (1966); and see Crittenden v. Municipal Court, 216 Cal.App.2d 811, 31 Cal.Rptr. 280 (1963); Collette v. Matejcek, 146 N.W.2d 156 (N.D.1966); and Kennett v. Levine, 49 Wash.2d 605, 304 P.2d 682 (1956).
The main thrust of the appellant's argument is a constitutional one, reliance being taken upon the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and §§ 23 and 24 of Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona, A.R.S. We deem it appropriate to base this decision upon pertinent statute. Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County, 1 Ariz.App. 334, 340, 402 P.2d 1010 (1965).
On review and affirmance of the above-cited decision, our Supreme Court said:
* * *
* * *
100 Ariz. 37, 46--47, 410 P.2d 479, 486, 16 A.L.R.3d 1362 (1966).
Rothweiler, supra, determines that A.R.S. § 22--320, subsec. A pertains to both justice and police courts. This statute categorically states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County
...tribunal's action. Ariz.Const. art. 6, § 14. A final judgment entered in such proceedings is an appealable order. Tsipai v. State of Arizona, 8 Ariz.App. 3, 442 P.2d 167 (1968). See also State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel, 84 Ariz. 223, 326 P.2d 348 (1958); Dotseth v. Justice......
-
Goldman v. Kautz
...so provide, as it has done in the case of prosecutions for violation of city ordinances. See A.R.S. § 22--425.' Tsipai v. State, 8 Ariz.App. 3, 4, 442 P.2d 167, 168 (1968). I do not believe that a proper respect for stare decisis demands that we adhere to previous cases which have been inco......
-
State ex rel. De Concini v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County
...defendant's request for a jury trial, the magistrate was undoubtedly following the pronouncements of this court in Tsipai v. State, 8 Ariz.App. 3, 442 P.2d 167 (1968). The reasoning employed in that opinion clearly supports the proposition that, in a criminal trial for a violation of a Stat......
-
City of Phoenix v. Jones
...410 P.2d at 486. (emphasis added) The rationale of Rothweiler was adopted and followed by the Court of Appeals in Tsipai v. State, 8 Ariz.App. 3, 442 P.2d 167 (1968), in a case involving a violation of the state statute against furnishing liquor to minors tried in Tucson Municipal Court. Th......