Special Actions

Special Actions in Arizona

Substantial Due Process Violations

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Substantive due process.  See Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, United States Constitution, and Article II, section 4 of the Arizona Constitution.

Jurisdiction

The Arizona Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for special actions that are brought pursuant to the rules of procedure for special actions. See Arizona Rules of Procedures for Special Action, Rules 1, 3, 4 and 7.

This Court of appeals is appropriate to consider this Petition as it arises out of a case in the Superior Court for the County of Maricopa. See Ariz. R. Proc. Sp. Act., R. 1; see also Arizona Revised Statutes, Section12-120.21(A)(4) (“[t]he court of appeals shall have: … jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions for special actions brought pursuant to the rules of procedure for special actions, without regard to its appellate jurisdiction.”)

Special action jurisdiction “is frequently accepted when under no rule of law can a trial court’s actions be justified.” See King v. Superior Court, 138 Ariz. 147, 149-150, 673 P.2d 787, 789 (1983).

No Equally Plain and Adequate Remedy

No “equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal.” Rule 1(a), Arizona Rules of Procedure for Special Actions; Gilbert Prosecutor’s Office v. Foster, 245 Ariz. 15, 17, ¶ 5, 424 P.3d 416, 418 (App. 2018).

• Claims of Privilege
• Remand for probable cause findings
• Bail issues
• Judicial orders requiring discovery that present problems beyond inconvenience
• Procedural rulings that, under the facts, cannot be effectively appealed

State v. Bejarano, 219 Ariz. 518, ¶ 4, 200 P.3d 1015, 1017 (App. 2008): order granting defendant’s motion to preclude state’s witness from testifying at trial not appealable.

Statewide Importance and Likely to Recur

Haywood Secs., Inc. v. Ehrlich, 214 Ariz. 114, ¶ 6, 149 P.3d 738, 739 (2007): The issue raised here is of statewide importance and one that is likely to recur due to the state’s reliance on wiretap evidence in criminal prosecutions.

Pure Questions of Law

State v. Nichols, 224 Ariz. 569, ¶ 2, 233 P.3d 1148, 1149 (App. 2010): the issue involves a pure question of law, further supporting our acceptance of special action jurisdiction.

Arbitrary and Capricious Abuses of Discretion

Special Actions are also appropriate when there is an issue as to “[w]hether a determination was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.” Ariz. R. Proc. Sp. Act., R. 3(c).

The 3 Questions

The Rules limit review by Special Action to three questions. Ariz. R. P. Spec. Actions 3.

• Respondent’s failure to exercise discretion under a preexisting duty or to perform a duty required by law entailing no discretion.
• Respondent proceeding or threatening to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction or legal authority.
• Whether a determination was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.