Opinion
No. 1 CA-SA 15-0014
02-24-2015
LUIZ FILHO DOS SANTOS, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE WARREN J. GRANVILLE, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent Judge, STATE OF ARIZIONA ex rel. WILLIAM MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Real Party in Interest.
COUNSEL Castillo Law, P.L.L.C., Phoenix By Cindy Castillo and Ashley S. Chambers Counsel for Petitioner Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By E. Catherine Leisch Counsel for Real Party in Interest
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2007-124233-001
The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge
JURISDICTION ACCEPTED, RELIEF GRANTED IN PART
COUNSEL
Castillo Law, P.L.L.C., Phoenix
By Cindy Castillo and Ashley S. Chambers
Counsel for Petitioner
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By E. Catherine Leisch
Counsel for Real Party in Interest
DECISION ORDER
Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
KESSLER, Judge:
¶1 The Court has considered the Petition for Special Action, the response thereto, and the reply, as well as the appendices filed in this matter. For the reasons stated below, the Court accepts jurisdiction of the petition and grants relief in part.
¶2 We may accept jurisdiction of a special action when there is no adequate remedy on appeal and there is a need to have appellate review in the interests of justice. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a) (providing that special action relief "shall not be available where there is an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal"); In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Gila River Sys, 217 Ariz. 276, 278, ¶ 8, 173 P.3d 440, 442 (2007) (accepting jurisdiction in the interest of justice); Haag v. Steinle, 227 Ariz. 212, 213-14, ¶¶ 4-5, 255 P.3d 1016, 1017-18 (App. 2011) (stating special action relief is appropriate when a party cannot obtain justice by other means; accepting jurisdiction when issue would otherwise become moot); S.A. v. Superior Court (Beatty), 171 Ariz. 529, 530, 831 P.2d 1297, 1298 (App. 1992) (stating acceptance of jurisdiction appropriate when there is no adequate remedy on appeal).
¶3 The superior court's March 5, 2014 order denying the motion to extend the time for petitioner to file a petition for review from the summary dismissal of his Rule 32 consolidated petitions for post-conviction relief ("Rule 32 Petitions") deprives Petitioner of appellate review of the merits of the dismissal of his Rule 32 Petitions. While this Court does not render any opinion on the merits of the Rule 32 Petitions, the interests of justice call for the need to review the dismissal on its merits. Accordingly, we accept jurisdiction of the petition.
¶4 Given the status of the record, we cannot find that the superior court abused its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion to amend his Rule 32 Petitions. However, given the objective of allowing an appellate court to review decisions on the merits, the court erred in then
denying that portion of the motion to extend the time to file a petition for review. Accordingly,
¶5 IT IS ORDERED vacating that portion of the superior court's order entered March 5, 2014, to the extent it denied Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file a petition for review from the order entered November 16, 2012, dismissing his Rule 32 Petitions.
¶6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the superior court to enter an order giving the Petitioner a reasonable time to file a petition for review from the November 16, 2012 order dismissing his Rule 32 petitions. We offer no opinion on whether the consolidation of the two Rule 32 Petitions precluded any argument that the second Rule 32 Petition was barred by Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2. The parties are free to argue preclusion in the petition for review.