| Wednesday, May 27, 2020 (Parts 2 of 2) - Motions
|
| Wednesday, May 27, 2020 (Parts 2 of 2) - Petitions for Review
|
|
|
| NOTE: Cases are listed until the issuance of the Court's mandate.
|
|
|
| AMERICAN FEDERATION et al v CITY OF PHOENIX et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0143-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 4/16/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition from Review granted as to Issues 1 and 2 only on 1/7/2020
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0027
|
|
|
| APOLLO EDUCATION v NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0229-CQ
|
| Oral Argument VACATED BY ORDER
ON 03/17/2020
|
| Certified Question accepted on 10/29/2019
|
|
|
|
ARIZONANS FOR SECOND CHANCES et al v HOBBS
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0098-SA
Decision Order filed 5/13/2020 |
| |
| CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW CLEMENTS v HON. BERNINI/STATE
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0140-PR
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 1/23/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 10/29/2019
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0288
|
|
|
| EPHRAIM DABUSH et al v SEACRET DIRECT LLC et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0200-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 1/21/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petitions for Review granted on 11/19/2019
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0288
|
|
|
| CLAUDIA DUFF v HON. LEE/TUCSON POLICE et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0128-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 2/18/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 11/19/2019
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-SA 18-0058
|
|
|
| HESHMAT DOROSTI v RECOVERY INNOVATIONS et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0136-PR
|
| Oral Argument was to be held on 1/21/2020; Vacated by Order on 1/17/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 10/29/2019
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0617
|
|
|
| E.H. v HON. SLAYTON/STATE et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0118-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 11/20/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 9/24/2019
|
| Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, 1 CA-SA 19-0004
|
|
|
|
ANTHONY GARCIA v HON. BUTLER/STATE
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0298-PR
Oral Argument to be held on 6/4/2020
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Review granted on 4/28/2020
Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division 2 Case No. 2 CA-SA 19-0017
|
|
|
| HELVETICA SERVICING INC v MICHAEL S PASQUAN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0242-PR
|
| Oral Argument VACATED BY ORDER ON 03/17/2020
|
| Petition for Review granted on 1/7/2020
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0699
|
|
|
| JOHNSON UTILITIES LLC v ARIZONA CORPORATION et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0105-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 11/5/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 8/29/2019
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-SA-18-0197
|
|
|
| JTF AVIATION et al v CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0209-PR
|
| Oral Argument VACATED BY ORDER ON 03/17/2020
|
| Petition from Review granted as to Issue 3 only on 1/7/2020
|
| Opinion & Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0530
|
|
|
| SUSAN LAGERMAN v ARIZONA STATE RETIRMENT SYSTEM
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0101-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 5/14/2020 |
| Oral
Argument
held on 12/17/2019
|
Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 9/24/2019
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, 1 CA-CV 18-0014
|
|
|
| FRANK PICCIOLI et al v CITY OF PHOENIX et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0116-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 4/16/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 1/7/2020
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0690
|
|
|
| SAGUARO HEALING LLC v STATE OF ARIZONA et al
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0129-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 12/17/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 9/24/2019 as to Issue #B only
|
| Memorandum Decision issued from the Court of Appeals, Division One, 1 CA-CV 18-0242
|
|
|
| MARIA ROSAS et al v ADES/CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA INC
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0100-PR
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 1/23/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted on 10/29/2019 as to Issue #1 only, as rephrased:
Did the court of appeals misinterpret A.R.S. § 23-750(E), the agreements between the parties, and the Board’s decisions?
Did the court of appeals ignore factual evidence that supported the Board’s decisions?
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Nos. 1 CA-UB 17-0385, 1 CA-UB 17-0414, 1 CA-UB 17-0415, 1 CA-UB 17-0416
|
|
|
| GREG SHEPHERD v COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0144-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 4/14/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted as to the following issues, as rephrased on 1/7/2020: 1. Does A.R.S. § 12-2296 immunize Costco from plaintiff’s negligence claim? 2. Does HIPAA inform the standard of care for negligent disclosure of medical information?
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0072
|
|
|
|
STATE BAR v HON. WILLIAM O’NEIL/JUAN MARTINEZ
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0035-SA
Oral Argument not yet scheduled
Case Summary not yet available
Petition for Special Action jurisdiction accepted on 4/28/2020
|
|
|
| STATE ex rel ADEL v HON. HANNAH JR/ASHLEY BUCKMAN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0280-SA
|
| Oral Argument held on 4/14/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Jurisdiction accepted on 2/11/2020
|
|
|
| STATE ex rel BRNOVICH v ABOR
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-19-0247-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 4/16/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for review granted as to this issue as rephrased on 2/11/2020: “Did the trial court err by dismissing he first amended complaint?”
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0420
|
|
|
| STATE ex rel BRNOVICH v CITY OF PHOENIX
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-20-0019-SA
|
| Decision Order issued on 4/2/2020 - Opinion to Follow
|
| Jurisdiction accepted on 1/22/2020
|
|
|
| STATE v JOHN MICHAEL ALLEN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0556-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 4/14/2020
|
| Oral Argument held on 2/18/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v SAMMANTHA LUCILLE REBECCA ALLEN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0368-AP
|
| Oral Argument not yet scheduled
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
|
| STATE v HON. KEMP/APOLINAR ALTAMIRANO
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0274-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 2/18/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted on 12/10/2019 as rephrased:
1. Did the trial court correctly apply the definition of adaptability in A.R.S. § 13-753(K)(1) in light of the decisions in Moore v. Texas, 137 S.Ct. 1039 (2017) and Moore v. Texas, 139 S.Ct. 666 (2019)?
2. Did Altamirano meet his burden of proving intellectual disability?
|
|
|
| STATE v CHRISTOPHER AREVALO
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0156-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 5/7/2020
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review as to this rephrased issue on 3/4/2020: Did the court of appeals correctly hold that A.R.S. § 13-1202(B)(2), a statute enhancing the penalty for threatening or intimidating committed by a member of a criminal street gang, is constitutional?
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case Nos. 1 CA-CR 18-0298 and 1 CA-CR 18-0299
|
|
|
| STATE v BOBBY RAY CARTER JR
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0508-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 9/20/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 4/30/2019, only as to the issues rephrased as follows: Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that (1) theft is a lesser-included offense of theft as a means of transportation, thus giving rise to impermissible double punishments; (2) theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery, thus giving rise to impermissible multiple punishments; and (3) a more severely-penalized offense can be a lesser-included offense of a less-severely-penalized offense for multiple-punishment purposes?
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No 2 CA-CR 17-0149
|
|
|
| STATE v WADE NOLAN CLAY
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0489-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 6/4/2020
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
Petition for Review granted to this issue as restated on 3/31/2020:
Do sentences that exceed the petitioner’s expected lifespan and are the equivalent of life without parole violate Eighth Amendment protections as articulated by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)?
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0463
|
|
|
| STATE v JOHN MONTENEGRO CRUZ
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0567-PC
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 6/2/2020
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
Petition for Review granted as to these issues as rephrased on 3/31/2020:
1. Was Lynch v. Arizona, 136 S. Ct. 1818 (2016) (Lynch II) a significant change in the law for purposes of Ariz. R. Cr. P. 32.1(g)?
2. Is Lynch II retroactively applicable to petitioner on collateral review?
3. If Lynch II applies retroactively, would its application have probably overturned petitioner’s sentence per Rule 32.1(g)?
|
|
|
| STATE v CHRIS THOMAS GOMEZ
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0292-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 6/2/2020
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review as to this rephrased issue on 3/4/2020: Did the trial court commit reversible error by admitting expert testimony that inconclusive DNA evidence found on the victim had two alleles also present in the defendant’s DNA profile?
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 2 CA-CR 18-0052
|
|
|
| STATE v DAVID LEE GREEN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0537-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 3/4/2020
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 9/26/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 5/28/2019
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 17-0208
|
|
|
| STATE v PABLO ISAAC HERNANDEZ
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0193-PR
|
| Oral Argument VACATED BY ORDER ON 03/17/2020
|
| Petition from Review granted as to Issue A only on 1/7/2020
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 18-0042
|
|
|
| STATE v MARK NORIKI KASIC JR
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0379-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 6/4/2020
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
Petition for Review granted as to this issue as restated on 3/31/2020:
Do sentences that exceed the petitioner’s expected lifespan and are the equivalent of life without parole violate Eighth Amendment protections as articulated by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)?
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 19-0143 PRPC
|
|
|
| STATE v BRYAN MITCHELL LIETZAU
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0132-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 2/18/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 11/19/2019
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 18-0011
|
|
|
| STATE v PHILIP JOHN MARTIN
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0380-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 8/9/2019
|
| Oral Argument held on 5/9/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted as to this issue only: “Was the prosecution barred by double jeopardy from re-trying Appellant for first degree murder after a conviction of second degree murder in a prior trial?” on 3/20/2019
|
| Opinion and Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CR 16-0551
|
|
|
| STATE v JAMES ERIN McKINNEY
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-93-0362-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 9/27/2018
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 9/6/2018
|
| Case
Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v WILLIAM MIXTON
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0276-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 2/13/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted on 11/19/2019
|
| Cross-Petition for Review granted as to issue #1 only on 11/19/2019
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 17-0217
|
|
|
| STATE v VIVEK A PATEL
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0366-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 5/5/2020
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
| Petition for Review as to this rephrased issue on 3/4/2020: Does A.R.S. § 28-672(G) violate the Victims’ Bill of Rights, Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1 (A)(8), by capping victim restitution?
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, Case No. 1 CA-CR 18-0774
|
|
|
| STATE v THOMAS MICHAEL RILEY
|
Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-15-0411-AP
|
| Opinion issued on 3/10/2020
|
Oral Argument held on 9/10/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
|
|
| STATE v DEMITRES ROBERTSON
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0175-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 4/14/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
| Petition for Review granted as to both issues on 2/11/20, with the second issue rephrased as follows: “Should the invited error doctrine apply to prevent appellate relief from illegal, stipulated sentences?”
|
| Opinion from the Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0491
|
|
|
| STATE v MARTIN RAUL SOTO-FONG
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0595-PR
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 6/4/2020
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
Petition for Review granted as to this issue as restated on 3/31/2020:
Do sentences that exceed the petitioner’s expected lifespan and are the equivalent of life without parole violate Eighth Amendment protections as articulated by Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)?
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 18-0181 PRPC
|
|
|
| STATE v PRESTON ALTON STRONG
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-17-0201-AP
|
| Oral Argument to be held on 5/5/2020
|
| Case Summary not yet available
|
|
|
| STATE v OSCAR PENA TRUJILLO
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-18-0531-PR
|
| Opinion issued on 5/4/2020
|
| Oral
Argument
held on 9/26/2019
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted on 5/28/2019 as to 1. Was Trujillo entitled to a jury finding on M.A.C.’s age when that fact increased the mandatory minimum sentence affecting sex-offender registration? 2. Was the error harmless? 3. Should this Court reconsider the opinion in State v. Noble, 171 Ariz. 171, (1992)
|
| Opinion issued from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, Case No. 2 CA-CR 17-0241
|
|
|
| STATE v LUIS ARMANDO VARGAS
|
| Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-19-0071-PR
|
| Oral Argument held on 2/13/2020
|
| Case Summary
|
|
Petition for Review granted on 10/29/2019 as to Issue #2 as rephrased:
Did petitioner preserve fundamental error review for individual claims of prosecutorial misconduct by arguing that cumulative instances of prosecutorial misconduct constituted fundamental error?
Did the court of appeals properly rely on State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349 (App. 2008)?
|
| Memorandum Decision from the Court of Appeals, Division Two, No. 2 CA-CR 16-0324
|
|
|
|
|
| NOTE: Cases are listed until the issuance of the Court's mandate.
|
|
|
|
|
| Notice: While the clerk's office maintains quality control measures on the information posted, some errors may occur. All posted information is subject to change or amendment.
|