Cited by

13 STATE v. COCHRAN Decision of the Court restitution, the superior court had jurisdiction to impose attorneys’ fees in its amended order because unlike the other fees imposed, attorneys’ fees do not “frustrate the appeal.” See State v. O’Connor, (although a court ordinarily loses jurisdiction once an appeal is filed, one exception is for acts that “cannot negate the decision in a pending appeal or frustrate the appeal process.”).

Accordingly, “[a] trial court may not render any decision that would defeat or usurp an appellate court’s jurisdiction of a case on appeal.” State v. O’Connor

Thus, until the mandate issues, the superior court may act only in a way that “cannot negate the decision in a pending appeal or frustrate the appeal process,” and it “may not render any decision that would defeat or usurp an appellate court’s jurisdiction of a case on appeal.” State v. O’Connor, –22 (App. 1992).

“By allowing the trial court to proceed with issues not directly involved in, or the subject matter of the appeal, the jurisdiction of the appellate court is adequately protected, and at the same time the trial court proceedings are not inordinately delayed pending the appellate decision.” State v. O’Connor

See State v. O’Connor, (“[A] trial court retains jurisdiction to act so long as that act cannot negate the decision in a pending appeal or frustrate the appeal process.”).

Stated differently, until the mandate issues after a proper appeal, the superior court “may not render any decision that would defeat or usurp an appellate court’s jurisdiction of a case on appeal,” recognizing a superior court can take action that does not “negate the decision in a pending appeal or frustrate the appeal process.” State v. O’Connor, 22 (App. 1992).

See State v. O’Connor, (“[A] trial court retains jurisdiction to act so long as that act cannot negate the decision in a pending appeal or frustrate the appeal process.”).

Hence, like the restitution lien statute we upheld in State v. O’Connor, § 13-805(B) is designed “to facilitate the collection of previously existing, independent, court-ordered debts owed by criminal defendants as a result of their criminal acts.”

¶ 9 Relying on State v. O’Connor, , Defendant asserts that he has a protectable property interest in the funds held by DOC in his spendable account and a due process right to notice and a hearing before DOC may withdraw money from it.

See State v. O’Connor, , (“[A]n appeal generally divests the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed except in furtherance of the appeal.”).

¶ 19 A prompt or immediate post-suspension hearing, in our opinion, satisfies due process in a true emergency because it accommodates the State’s need to move swiftly when protective action cannot wait, yet grants “an opportunity to be heard at a significant time and in a significant manner.” State v. O’Connor, , (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brash Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 , 102 S.Ct.

Due process requires that a person whose property is taken be given an opportunity to be heard “at a significant time and in a significant manner.” State v. O’Connor, , (finding due process violation when, pursuant to a restitution lien, State took money from inmate’s trust account without notice or hearing).

See State v. O’Connor, , (trial court may not render any decision that would defeat or usurp appellate court’s jurisdiction of the case on appeal).

(trial court may not render any decision that would defeat or usurp appellate court's jurisdiction of the case on appeal).

See State v. O’Connor, , -30 , -42 (App.1984); Ariz.R.Civ.App.P.

The obverse proposition is that “a trial court retains jurisdiction to act as long as that act cannot negate the decision in a pending appeal or frustrate the appeal process.” State v. O’Connor

The City contends that the tax court lacked jurisdiction to issue an opinion after the notice of appeal was filed because the tax court was divested of its jurisdiction on any action involving the subject matter of the appeal, citing Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Comm’n

Vigliotto (decedent) appealed and Division One of this court, in State v. O’Connor, , 1 held that 1) the trial court had jurisdiction to enter orders concerning excess funds not subject to garnishment after notice of appeal; 2) application of the restitution lien statute to decedent did not violate an ex post facto prohibition; 3) filing of the restitution lien without actual

State v. O’Connor, , ( , ).