Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



FAQ

Register       Login

ATTENTION: This site has been recently moved. If you had an account on our old forum site, you will have to register a new account here in order to be able to post replies.

 

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its August 29, 2017 Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Pending Rules List

         Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 08 Nov 2016 10:15 AM by  Jennifer Greene
R-16-0041 Rules 6, 7 and 41, Ariz. Rules of Criminal Procedure
 5 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Jennifer Greene
New Member
Posts:16 New Member

--
25 Aug 2016 03:21 PM
    submitted on behalf of:
    David K. Byers
    Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington, Suite 411
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3301
    Projects2@courts.az.gov

    Would implement recommendations of the Task Force for Fair Justice for All regarding release decisions that protect the public but do not keep people in jail solely for the inability to pay bail, and other recommendations in the report.

    Expedited consideration requested.

    Request for Expedited consideration granted 8/29/2016.
    Comments due October 21, 2016.
    Petitioner's reply to comments due: November 10, 2016.

    ADOPTED as modified, effective April 3, 2017.
    Attachments
    Barbara Broderick
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    13 Oct 2016 04:33 PM
    Barbara Broderick
    Maricopa County Adult Probation Department
    Suite 3098
    620 West Jackson Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85003-2423
    Ph: 602-506-1244

    The Maricopa County Adult Probation Department (MCAPD) appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Rule changes.

    We are looking forward to the changes taking effect, and only have a few comments.

    1. General Comment:
    The current practice in Rule 3.2.a of how and when bonds are set, when issuing a warrant, (Grand Jury warrants, Superior Court FTA ) does not utilize risk-based decision making, because the information allowing for risk-based decision making is not available when the amount of bond is established. Currently, when a warrant is issued, the judicial officer signing the warrant makes an individual determination regarding the amount of a secured appearance bond if the individual is bailable as a matter of right (Rule 3.2.a) and it is generally affirmed by subsequent judicial officers. Judicial officers tend to honor previous decisions made regarding bond amounts, even if new information is available such as the results of a risk assessment that predicts the defendant’s likelihood of appearing in court and staying crime free while their case is pending. This existing practice is not consistent with the goals of the Task Force and low risk people that are indigent are not able to be released because of secured bond determined without relevant information. We are recommending a change be made to Rule 3.2.a to delete the ability for the judicial officer issuing the warrant to state the amount of the secured appearance bond and instead, that release decisions will be made at the IA hearing, or any hearing subsequent to arrest, where risk-based decision making tools are available to allow the judicial officer to make an informed decision. This process should exclude probation violation warrants.

    Recommended verbiage:
    Rule 3.2. Content of warrant or summons
    a. Warrant. The warrant shall be signed by the issuing magistrate and shall contain the name of the defendant or, if the defendant's name is unknown, any name or description by which the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty. It shall state the offense with which the defendant is charged and whether the offense is one to which victims' rights provisions apply. It shall command that the defendant be arrested and brought before the issuing magistrate or, if the issuing magistrate is absent or unable to act, the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the same county. If the defendant is bailable as a matter of right, it shall state the amount of a secured appearance bond decisions regarding release shall be made by a magistrate at the time of arrest, when a risk-assessment is available to inform the decision.

    2. General Comment:
    From our experience, there is confusion between the definitions of “bailable” and “bondable”. We propose adding clarifying definitions as to the meanings.

    3. Proposed changes to Rule 6.1:
    There is come confusion as to the intent, and when the counsel will be present. The way the proposed changes read, it sounds like the appointment of counsel occurs after the IA hearing. If so, what about grand jury cases or any case where charges are already filed? Does this mean that counsel will be present at the IA hearing for these cases?

    We believe the appointment of counsel should occur at the IA hearing, as it is a key juncture in a person’s life, who is presumed innocent. Very consequential decisions will be made at the IA hearing and one of the goals of the Task Force is to recommend best practices for making release decisions that protect the public but do not keep people in jail solely for the inability to pay bail.

    Providing legal counsel at the IA hearing is a best practice and it will be a good check and balance to help support the Task Force’s goals and practices for Arizona Courts of people not being jailed pending the disposition of charges merely because they are poor. Having legal counsel present at the IA hearing will help support and individual’s release on OR, or to Pretrial Services for low to moderate risk individuals, while not increasing risk to public safety.

    There is research indicating that when low risk individuals are detained in a pretrial status for 2-3 or more days, they are more likely to commit new crimes and fail to appear in Court and more likely to commit a new crime within two (2) years of post- disposition.

    As an alternative to having counsel present at the IA hearing, the Court could require a second review hearing within 72 hours of being detained to re-evaluate moderate and low-risk offenders, prioritizing the low risk.

    Relating to victims’ rights—the victims in victim-related matters could be advised at the IA hearing that there will be a second review hearing subsequent to the IA hearing where custody orders will be determined.

    Recommended verbiage:
    “An indigent defendant shall be entitled to have an attorney appointed for any criminal proceeding which may result in punishment by loss of liberty.
    Or:
    “The Court should require a second review hearing within 72 hours of being detained to re-evaluate low-risk and moderate risk offenders.”

    4. Proposed changes to Rule 7.7:
    It is unclear what “temporarily” modifies means in this Rule. Once a Superior Court Judge modifies the conditions of release, and notifies the originating lower-jurisdiction of the release order, how does this become a “temporary” situation? We believe the word “temporarily” should be removed from the proposed verbiage.

    Also, we believe there is a potential gap in this Rule proposal. If a probationer is released to treatment under this Rule, and subsequently absconds, a probation violation warrant would likely be filed. However, how would the lower-level Court be made aware of this circumstance? We believe there to be a responsibility to communicate the status of the probationer while on release under the provisions of this Rule. We would like to see the Court also provide a copy of the release order to the probation department so that appropriate follow up can take place and the probationer can be directed to return to the lower-jurisdiction Court to address the misdemeanor matter when back in the community.

    Recommended verbiage:
    A superior court judge may modify the conditions of release that were imposed in a misdemeanor case of a probationer who is detained due to failure to post a secured bond in that case in order to permit release of the probationer to participate in a treatment program. The court shall provide instructions to the probationer as to how to handle the misdemeanor matter, and the clerk must provide the order to the court that imposed the conditions of release in the misdemeanor case as well as to the probation department. Further, the probation department shall notify the court of any change to the probationer’s status if the probationer leaves the treatment program prior to successful completion or a probation violation warrant is issued, so that the court may then notify the lower-jurisdiction court of the change in status.

    Joseph Domanico
    New Member
    Posts:14 New Member

    --
    18 Oct 2016 04:03 PM
    WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY
    MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
    (FIRM STATE BAR NO. 00032000)

    MARK FAULL
    CHIEF DEPUTY
    301 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 800
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
    TELEPHONE: (602) 506-3800
    (STATE BAR NUMBER 011474)
    faull@mcao.maricopa.gov

    R-16-0041

    MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO AMEND RULES 6, 7, AND 41 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    Attachments
    Diana Cooney
    New Member
    Posts:10 New Member

    --
    19 Oct 2016 09:44 AM
    ELIZABETH ORTIZ
    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
    ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS'
    ADVISORY COUNCIL (APAAC)
    1951 WEST CAMELBACK ROAD, SUITE 202
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85015
    602-542-7222
    602-274-4215
    Elizabeth.Ortiz@apaac.az.gov
    (BAR NO. 012838)

    R-16-0041

    ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO AMEND RULES 6, 7, AND 41 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    Attachments
    Tennie Martin
    New Member
    Posts:3 New Member

    --
    19 Oct 2016 03:33 PM
    Submitted on behalf of:

    ARIZONA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
    David J. Euchner
    AZ State Bar No. 021768
    33 N. Stone Ave., 21st Floor
    Tucson, Arizona 85701
    (520) 724-6800
    david.euchner@pima.gov

    ARIZONA PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION
    Michael A. Breeze
    AZ State Bar No. 006825
    LAW OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
    168 South Second Avenue
    Yuma, Arizona 85364
    (928) 817-4600
    Attachments
    Jennifer Greene
    New Member
    Posts:16 New Member

    --
    08 Nov 2016 10:15 AM
    Filed on behalf of:
    David K. Byers
    Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington, Suite 411
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3301
    Projects2@courts.az.gov

    Petitioner's Reply attached.
    Attachments
    Topic is locked