Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Wein

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

April 25, 2017

STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner,
v.
THE HONORABLE KEVIN B. WEIN, Commissioner of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Commissioner, MARLIN BRYAN HENDERSON, Real Party in Interest. STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner,
v.
THE HONORABLE KEVIN B. WEIN, Commissioner of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Commissioner, GUY JAMES GOODMAN, Real Party in Interest.

         Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2017-108708-001 No. CR2017-107553-001 The Honorable Kevin B. Wein, Commissioner

          Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Lisa Marie Martin Counsel for Petitioner

          Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Nicholaus Podsiadlik, Jamie A. Jackson Counsel for Real Party in Interest Goodman

          Michael L. Freeman, Scottsdale Counsel for Real Party in Interest Henderson

          Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.

          OPINION

          THOMPSON, Judge

         ¶1 This consolidated special action concerns bail in sexual assault cases following Simpson v. Miller (Simpson II), 241 Ariz. 341, 387 P.3d 1270 (2017). The state argues that trial courts are erroneously holding bail hearings for individual defendants charged with sexual assault. It asserts that no hearing is required for a determination of future dangerousness. The real parties in interest assert Simpson II requires a finding of individualized dangerousness for each defendant before denying bail. Because this issue is important and the potential threat to the community great, we have, in a previously entered order, accepted jurisdiction and granted the state relief. Sexual assault remains a non-bailable offense.

         JURISDICTION

         ¶2 Special action jurisdiction is available when there is no other equally plain, speedy or adequate remedy by appeal. Ariz. R. Spec. Act. 1(a). Another critical factor is whether the case presents an issue of statewide importance affecting numerous cases. Lind v. Sup. Ct., 191 Ariz. 233, 236, ¶ 10, 954 P.2d 1058, 1061 (App. 1998). The issue presented here is of statewide importance, is likely to recur numerous times, and is an issue of first impression following Simpson II. There is no remedy by appeal. For these reasons, we accepted special action jurisdiction.

         PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         ¶3 On February 9, 2017, our supreme court issued Simpson II. On February 13, 2017, the Maricopa County superior court issued a "Protocol for Setting Simpson v. Miller Review Hearings." That protocol stated of Simpson II:

In summary, the ruling held unconstitutional the portion of A.R.S. 13-3961(A) [2010] that allowed a defendant charged with Sexual Assault, Sexual Conduct with a Minor under 15, or Molestation of a Child under 15 to be held without bond if the Court has only made a "proof evident and presumption great" finding. The ruling held that in addition to a finding of proof evident and presumption great, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence (at a "full blown adversary hearing") that no condition or combination of conditions of release may be imposed that will reasonably assure that the safety of the other person or community (per A.R.S. § 13-3961(D) [2010]).

         ¶4 Goodman and Henderson were each charged with one count of sexual assault under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 13-1406 (2010), a class 2 felony. In both cases, the superior court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant could properly be held without bail under A.R.S. § 13-3961(D). In both cases, the superior court found proof evident and presumption great that the defendants committed sexual assault. However, because the court found that the state did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants were an ongoing danger to the community or to the victim, both ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.