SPECIAL ACTIONS

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.

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, 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).

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).

Grand Jury Challenges

“To obtain review of a denial of redetermination of probable cause, a defendant must seek relief before trial by special action.” State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9, 32 (1995).

If a person convicted, he has no right to appeal denial of his motion to remand. Bashir v. Pineda, 226 Ariz. 351, 353, 248 P.3d 199, 201 (App. 2011).

Timing

A party must file a petition for review no later than 30 days after the Court of Appeals enters its decision, unless a party files a timely motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals and, in that event, a party must file a petition for review no later than 15 days after the motion’s final disposition.

Contents

A petition should contain concise statements of:

A party filing a petition, a cross-petition, a response, a reply, or an appendix must serve a copy of the document in the manner provided in Rule 31.13(d) on all parties who were entitled to service in the Court of Appeals.



The party also must file and serve a certificate of service in the manner provided in Rule 31.13(d)(2).