Hemmer v. Superior Court

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Hemmer v. Superior Court

499 P.2d 166, 17 Ariz. App. 552, 1972 Ariz. App. LEXIS 752

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJuly 27, 1972

DocketNo. 2 CA-CIV 1256

StatusPublished

This text of 499 P.2d 166 (Hemmer 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

Hemmer v. Superior Court, 499 P.2d 166, 17 Ariz. App. 552, 1972 Ariz. App. LEXIS 752 (Ark. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

HATHAWAY, Judge.

This special action proceeding seeks review of a ruling of the respondent court with respect to petitioner’s motion to modify a sentence previously imposed for a conviction of attempted grand theft. The sole basis for the court’s ruling was that it lacked jurisdiction to vacate a sentence already imposed. The court did indicate, however, that it would be inclined to grant the request were it not for the “jurisdictional” impediment. Since relief by way of special action is the appropriate vehicle to determine whether a lower court has abused its discretion in refusing to accept jurisdiction, Genda v. Superior Ct., 103 Ariz. 240, 439 P.2d 811 (1968), we assume jurisdiction.

We believe that the decision of this court in State v. Dixon, 6 Ariz.App. 210, 431 P.2d 105 (1967) is dispositive of the issue of jurisdiction. We held, citing the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision of State v. Lopez, 96 Ariz. 169, 393 P.2d 263 (1964) that the only exception to a trial court’s inherent jurisdiction to modify and vacate its own judgments in criminal cases, in accordance with Rule 60(c), is where an ap[553]*553peal to the appellate court has been perfected. In Dixon we specifically rejected the state’s contention that a second exception to the rule should arise when a defendant, convicted of a criminal charge, has been committed to prison and has begun his sentence.

Our conclusion is that the respondent court did have jurisdiction to determine the merits of petitioner’s motion and we therefore direct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

KRUCKER, C. J., and HOWARD, J., concur.

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

HATHAWAY, Judge.

This special action proceeding seeks review of a ruling of the respondent court with respect to petitioner’s motion to modify a sentence previously imposed for a conviction of attempted grand theft. The sole basis for the court’s ruling was that it lacked jurisdiction to vacate a sentence already imposed. The court did indicate, however, that it would be inclined to grant the request were it not for the “jurisdictional” impediment. Since relief by way of special action is the appropriate vehicle to determine whether a lower court has abused its discretion in refusing to accept jurisdiction, Genda v. Superior Ct., 103 Ariz. 240, 439 P.2d 811 (1968), we assume jurisdiction.

We believe that the decision of this court in State v. Dixon, 6 Ariz.App. 210, 431 P.2d 105 (1967) is dispositive of the issue of jurisdiction. We held, citing the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision of State v. Lopez, 96 Ariz. 169, 393 P.2d 263 (1964) that the only exception to a trial court’s inherent jurisdiction to modify and vacate its own judgments in criminal cases, in accordance with Rule 60(c), is where an ap[553]*553peal to the appellate court has been perfected. In Dixon we specifically rejected the state’s contention that a second exception to the rule should arise when a defendant, convicted of a criminal charge, has been committed to prison and has begun his sentence.

Our conclusion is that the respondent court did have jurisdiction to determine the merits of petitioner’s motion and we therefore direct further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

KRUCKER, C. J., and HOWARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 P.2d 166, 17 Ariz. App. 552, 1972 Ariz. App. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hemmer-v-superior-court-arizctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack