Price v. State

Arizona Supreme Court

Price v. State

3 P.2d 1114, 39 Ariz. 59, 1931 Ariz. LEXIS 162

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1931

DocketCriminal No. 740.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 P.2d 1114 (Price v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Price v. State, 3 P.2d 1114, 39 Ariz. 59, 1931 Ariz. LEXIS 162 (Ark. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

The appellant was charged by complaint in the city court of the city of Phoenix with driving or operating an automobile in and upon the streets of Phoenix while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. From a conviction and sentence he appealed to the superior court of Maricopa county, where he was tried denovo and again convicted. From such conviction and the sentence imposed he has appealed.

He asserts that the city court and the superior court on appeal from the city court were without jurisdiction of the offense charged.

Since the trial below and since this appeal was taken we have held that the offense charged, is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the superior court. Clayton v. State,38 Ariz. 135, 297 P. 1037, on rehearing 38 Ariz. 466,300 P. 1010.

On the authority of the Clayton case, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions that the complaint be dismissed. *Page 60

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

The appellant was charged by complaint in the city court of the city of Phoenix with driving or operating an automobile in and upon the streets of Phoenix while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. From a conviction and sentence he appealed to the superior court of Maricopa county, where he was tried denovo and again convicted. From such conviction and the sentence imposed he has appealed.

He asserts that the city court and the superior court on appeal from the city court were without jurisdiction of the offense charged.

Since the trial below and since this appeal was taken we have held that the offense charged, is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the superior court. Clayton v. State,38 Ariz. 135, 297 P. 1037, on rehearing 38 Ariz. 466,300 P. 1010.

On the authority of the Clayton case, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions that the complaint be dismissed. *Page 60

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 P.2d 1114, 39 Ariz. 59, 1931 Ariz. LEXIS 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-state-ariz-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack