Selestewa v. Hopi Tribe
This text of 4 Am. Tribal Law 409 (Selestewa v. Hopi Tribe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hopi Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order
This Court declines to accept jurisdiction on Sharolyn Selestewa’s Petition for Extraordinary Writ. Rule 35 of the Hopi Indian Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure is analogous to Arizona’s rules regarding special actions. Like Arizona’s special action, the granting of an extraordinary writ is highly discretionary. See Pompa v. Superior Court in and for the County of Maricopa, 187 Ariz. 531, 931 P.2d 431 (1997). Under a special action, Ms. Selestewa bears the burden of persuasion where she alleges that the Tribal Court judge committed error in denying her motion to dismiss the criminal complaint with prejudicial surplus language. This Court is not persuaded that Ms. Sel-estewa has met that burden. A complaint does not constitute evidence. The surplus language does not prejudice Ms. Seleste-wa.
Therefore, this Court DECLINES to accept jurisdiction and DISMISSES the petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Am. Tribal Law 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selestewa-v-hopi-tribe-hopiappct-2002.