Anonymous v. Superior Court

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Anonymous v. Superior Court

418 P.2d 416, 4 Ariz. App. 170, 1966 Ariz. App. LEXIS 445

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedSeptember 27, 1966

Docket2 CA-CIV 271

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 418 P.2d 416 (Anonymous v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anonymous v. Superior Court, 418 P.2d 416, 4 Ariz. App. 170, 1966 Ariz. App. LEXIS 445 (Ark. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Martin S. Rogers is prosecuting this appeal from an order of the superior court, Pima County, Arizona, finding him in contempt of court and ordering that he pay the sum of $100 to the superior court clerk to purge himself of said contempt or a bench warrant would issue for his arrest for failure to so do. Appellant thereupon filed his notice of appeal the same day.

We have often reiterated the principle that an appellate court has a duty, sua sponte, to inquire into its jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a challenge to such jurisdiction. Ginn v. Superior Court In and For County of Pima, 1 Ariz.App. 455, 457, 404 P.2d 721 (1965) ; Christian v. Cotten, 1 Ariz.App. 421, 423, 403 P.2d 825 (1965); Searles v. Haldiman, 3 Ariz.App. 294, 413 P.2d 860 (1966).

Preliminarily, we must point out that the “order” from which this appeal is taken was a minute entry order bearing no signature of .a judge. Such order does not comport with the requirements of Rule 58 (a), as amended, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., and is therefore lacking in effectiveness for purposes of appeal. Haechler v. Andrews, 2 Ariz.App. 395, 397, 409 P.2d 315 (1965) ; State v. Birmingham, 96 Ariz. 109, 112, 392 P.2d 775 (1964).

Apart from this lack of the prerequisite of “form,” the subject contempt order is not an appealable order. The lower court based its adjudication of contempt, after affording appellant a full opportunity to be heard, on appellant’s failure to appear as counsel at a scheduled court hearing. Such act has recently been classified by the Supreme Court of Arizona as a criminal contempt within the purview of A.R.S. § 12-864, as distinguished from the criminal contempt referred to in A.R.S. §§ 12-861 through 12-863. Ong Hing v. Thurston, 101 Ariz. 92, 416 P.2d 416, 422 (1966). There being no constitutional or statutory authority conferring such right, appellant has no right of appeal. Herzog v. Reinhardt, 2 Ariz.App. 103, 104, 406 P.2d 738 (1965) ; See also Van Dyke v. Superior Court, 24 Ariz. 508, 543, 211 P. 576 (1922) ; In re Wright, 36 Ariz. 8, 13, 281 P. 944 (1929) ; A.R.S. § 12-2101.

Since an appeal does not lie from this contempt order, this court is without jurisdiction to proceed and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Martin S. Rogers is prosecuting this appeal from an order of the superior court, Pima County, Arizona, finding him in contempt of court and ordering that he pay the sum of $100 to the superior court clerk to purge himself of said contempt or a bench warrant would issue for his arrest for failure to so do. Appellant thereupon filed his notice of appeal the same day.

We have often reiterated the principle that an appellate court has a duty, sua sponte, to inquire into its jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a challenge to such jurisdiction. Ginn v. Superior Court In and For County of Pima, 1 Ariz.App. 455, 457, 404 P.2d 721 (1965) ; Christian v. Cotten, 1 Ariz.App. 421, 423, 403 P.2d 825 (1965); Searles v. Haldiman, 3 Ariz.App. 294, 413 P.2d 860 (1966).

Preliminarily, we must point out that the “order” from which this appeal is taken was a minute entry order bearing no signature of .a judge. Such order does not comport with the requirements of Rule 58 (a), as amended, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., and is therefore lacking in effectiveness for purposes of appeal. Haechler v. Andrews, 2 Ariz.App. 395, 397, 409 P.2d 315 (1965) ; State v. Birmingham, 96 Ariz. 109, 112, 392 P.2d 775 (1964).

Apart from this lack of the prerequisite of “form,” the subject contempt order is not an appealable order. The lower court based its adjudication of contempt, after affording appellant a full opportunity to be heard, on appellant’s failure to appear as counsel at a scheduled court hearing. Such act has recently been classified by the Supreme Court of Arizona as a criminal contempt within the purview of A.R.S. § 12-864, as distinguished from the criminal contempt referred to in A.R.S. §§ 12-861 through 12-863. Ong Hing v. Thurston, 101 Ariz. 92, 416 P.2d 416, 422 (1966). There being no constitutional or statutory authority conferring such right, appellant has no right of appeal. Herzog v. Reinhardt, 2 Ariz.App. 103, 104, 406 P.2d 738 (1965) ; See also Van Dyke v. Superior Court, 24 Ariz. 508, 543, 211 P. 576 (1922) ; In re Wright, 36 Ariz. 8, 13, 281 P. 944 (1929) ; A.R.S. § 12-2101.

Since an appeal does not lie from this contempt order, this court is without jurisdiction to proceed and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 P.2d 416, 4 Ariz. App. 170, 1966 Ariz. App. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anonymous-v-superior-court-arizctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack