Wicks v. City of Tucson
| Decision Date | 17 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 11931--PR,11931--PR |
| Parties | Randall E. WICKS, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF TUCSON, the Civil Service Commission of the City of Tucson, William Gilkinson, Paul Miner and Louis J. Felix, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Risner, Wolf & Raven by Peter B. Keller, Roger C. Wolf, Tucson, for petitioner.
Cusick, Watkins, Stewart & Harris by Hugh W. Stewart, Tucson, for respondents.
We accepted this petition for review to determine the propriety of an action by the Tucson City Civil Service Commission sustaining the discharge of a city police patrolman on the basis of a tie vote of the members of the Commission.
The appellee, Randall E. Wicks, was a patrolman with the Tucson Police Department. On January 29, 1973, Wicks was served with a notice signed by the police chief that he was discharged from duty as of the following day. The statement of charges listed five counts of misconduct. Pursuant to the request of Wicks, the Commission held a hearing at which the parties were present and at which evidence was taken. The Commission sustained the decision of the police chief by a 2--2 vote of its members pursuant to Rule XII, Sec. 4(c) of the civil service rules then in effect.
Wicks filed a special action in the Superior Court of Pima County which upheld the action of the Commission. He then filed a special action in the Court of Appeals which accepted jurisdiction, reversed the action of the Superior Court and the Commission in a memorandum decision, and reinstated Wicks. A petition for review was then filed and accepted by this court. Rule 8(b), Rules of Procedure for Special Actions. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated.
The first challenge is to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in accepting the special action. A judgment in a special action in a superior court may be reviewed by a special action in the Court of Appeals if there is no 'equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal.' Rule 8(a), Rules of Procedure for Special Actions.
The acceptance of a special action by an appellate court is highly discretionary with that court. See Rule 3, Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, State Bar Committee Note. We will not say that the Court of Appeals improperly accepted jurisdiction of a special action unless an abuse of discretion is shown by the party making that argument. No abuse has been demonstrated in this case.
Differing with the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that the case of Wolkin v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Tucson, 21 Ariz.App. 341, 519 P.2d 194 (1974), controlled the issue of whether a tie vote of the members of the Commission will uphold the action of the discharging officer. We agree with the Court of Appeals that a tie vote is not sufficient.
The city charter of Tucson provides that an employee such as Wicks can only be discharged for just cause. The discharging officer furnished Wicks with a catalogue of reasons alleged to provide the police chief with just cause to discharge him. Wicks sought a hearing before the Commission which resulted in the 2--2 vote. The rules of that body then in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Superior Court
...4. The acceptance of jurisdiction of a petition for special action is highly discretionary in this Court, Wicks v. City of Tucson, 112 Ariz. 487, 543 P.2d 1116 (1975); State Bar Committee Notes, Ariz.R.P.Sp.Act. 3. We generally accept jurisdiction of these cases only where the issues raised......
-
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement
...the application of the preponderance of the evidence standard in previous merit system cases. See, e.g., Wicks v. City of Tucson, 112 Ariz. 487, 488, 543 P.2d 1116, 1117 (1975) (stating that the Tucson Civil Service Commission requires an employer to bear the burden of proving facts by a pr......
-
City of Tucson v. Mills
...must be persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence to concur with the opinion of the discharging officer. Wicks v. City of Tucson, 112 Ariz. 487, 543 P.2d 1116 (1975). The touchstone of preponderance as applied to the testimony of witnesses is the capacity of the submitted testimony to en......
-
Saldate v. Montgomery ex rel. Maricopa Cnty. Attorney's Office
...Saldate argued that a tie vote means that he won his appeal and that his reinstatement was mandated under Wicks v. City of Tucson, 112 Ariz. 487, 543 P.2d 1116 (1975), and Wolkin v. Civil Service Commission of City of Tucson, 21 Ariz.App. 341, 519 P.2d 194 (1974). MCAO argued that under Mar......