Cited by

¶16 Though “highly discretionary,” special action jurisdiction is appropriate when no “equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal exists.” ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (cleaned up).

¶6 Special action jurisdiction “may be appropriate when no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal exists.” ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (citation modified); Ariz. R.P.

Special action jurisdiction “is ‘highly discretionary[.]’” Yauck v. W. Town Bank & Tr., ___ Ariz. ___, ___ ¶ 12, ( ¶ 10 (App. 2020)); see also Ariz. R.P.

We are bound by the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinions and have “no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard them.” ¶ 20 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 20 (1999)).

(explaining legislature’s general intent to articulate marked difference between criminal recklessness and civil negligence as basis for criminal prosecutions beyond civil liability); (addressing severity of conduct necessary to distinguish “between civil and criminal conduct”).

DISCUSSION ¶12 The decision to accept special action jurisdiction is “highly discretionary,” ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (citation omitted), but may be appropriate where no “equally plain, speedy, and adequate .

Special action jurisdiction is appropriate “in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.” ¶ 10 (App. 2020); see also Ariz. R.P.

The record has “evidence that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 21 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).

SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ¶7 Though “highly discretionary,” special action jurisdiction may be appropriate when a party has no “equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal.” ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (quoting Ariz. R.P.

We discern no error because the record has “evidence that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶ 21 (App. 2020) (quoting Pena, 235 Ariz. at 279, ¶ 5).

¶ 10 (App. 2020); see also Coombs, 241 Ariz. at 322, ¶ 10 (“[T]he superior court has discretion to decide whether to consider a special action on its merits.”).

Jurisdiction is also appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.” ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (quotations omitted).

purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.” ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (quotation omitted); see also Ariz. R.P.

Jurisdiction is also appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.” ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (quotations omitted).

“Special action jurisdiction is highly discretionary but may be appropriate when no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal exists.” ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (quotation omitted).