Moreno Meza v. Hon lafave/state

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

ENRIQUE ANTONIO MORENO MEZA, Petitioner,

v.

THE HONORABLE JULIE A. LAFAVE, Commissioner of the SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of
MARICOPA, Respondent Commissioner,

STATE OF ARIZONA, Real Party in Interest.

No. 1 CA-SA 24-0084
FILED 07-11-2024

Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. LC2021-133678-001
Hassayampa Justice Court
No. TR2021-133678-001
The Honorable Julie A. LaFave, Judge Pro Tempore

REVERSED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Kristen Renner, Damon A. Rossi
Counsel for Petitioner

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Johnny Jacquez
Counsel for Real Party in Interest
 MORENO MEZA v. HON. LAFAVE/STATE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 In this special action, Enrique Antonio Moreno Meza seeks
relief from the superior court’s decision vacating the justice court’s
judgment and sentence of his misdeamnor DUI guilty plea and remanding
for further consideration of the State’s motion to dismiss. For the following
reasons, we accept special action jurisdiction and grant relief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On April 21, 2023, Moreno Meza pled guilty to a
misdemeanor DUI under Arizona Revised Statutes section 28-1381(A)(1),
(2) in the Hassayampa Justice Court. The court accepted his plea and
sentenced him. Prior to Moreno Meza pleading guilty, the State moved to
dismiss the misdemeanor DUI charge without prejudice so it could refile
the DUI charge as a felony. The justice court denied the motion. The State
did not seek special action relief from the denial of the motion to dismiss
prior to the justice court’s acceptance of the guilty plea or prior to
sentencing.

¶3 After the justice court accepted Moreno Meza’s guilty plea
and sentenced him, the State appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss to
the superior court. The superior court vacated the judgment of the justice
court and remanded for further consideration of the motion to dismiss.

¶4 Moreno Meza then filed this petition for special action.

SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION

¶5 “Special action jurisdiction is appropriate when a party has
no equally plain, adequate or speedy remedy by appeal.” Parent v.
McClennen, 206 Ariz. 473, 475, ¶ 8 (App. 2003). Moreno Meza possesses no
others means of relief from the superior court’s decision in the appeal from
the justice court’s judgment. See A.R.S. § 22-375; Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. App. P.
Crim. 13(b). Accordingly, we accept special action jurisdiction.

2
 MORENO MEZA v. HON. LAFAVE/STATE
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review a court’s jurisdictional authority de novo. Arturo
D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 249 Ariz. 20, 23, ¶ 9 (App. 2020). Likewise,
whether double jeopardy attaches is a question of law we review de novo.
Lemke v. Rayes, 213 Ariz. 232, 236, ¶ 10 (App. 2006).

¶7 Moreno Meza argues the superior court did not have
jurisdiction to consider the State’s appeal. The State appealed to the
superior court citing A.R.S. § 13-4032(4), (5), as the sole statutory basis to
pursue an appeal or alternatively requesting the superior court treat the
appeal as a special action. The superior court did not grant special action
review but rather accepted appellate review. That court found jurisdiction
exists “pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 16; A.R.S. §§ 12-124(A) and 13-
4031; and the Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procure—Criminal.”

¶8 Under A.R.S. § 13-4032(4) the State may appeal from:

An order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights
of the state or a victim, except that the state shall only take an
appeal on an order affecting the substantial rights of a victim
at the victim’s request.

In this case, the State appeals the order denying its motion to dismiss that
was made prior to the judgment. Therefore, A.R.S. § 13-4032(4) does not
provide a basis for the State’s appeal.

¶9 Next, under A.R.S. § 13-4032(5) the State may appeal “[a]
sentence on the grounds that it is illegal, or if the sentence imposed is other
than the presumptive sentence authorized.” An illegal sentence occurs
when “the trial judge imposes a sentence that is in violation of statutory
mandates.” State v. Crawford, 159 Ariz. 339, 341 (App. 1989). A first time
violation of A.R.S. § 28-1381 imposes a minimum penalty of 10 days in jail
and fines. A.R.S. § 28-1381(I). The justice court considered Moreno Meza’s
offense a first time violation and imposed ten days in jail (nine days
suspended upon completion of substance abuse treatment), fines, and
completion of a substance abuse program. Since there is no presumptive
sentence for misdemanor convictions, the portion of A.R.S. § 13-4032(5) that
authorizes appeal by the State from a sentence “other than the presumptive
sentence” is not applicable in misdemeanor cases. Id. at 340. Moreno Meza
pled to a misdemeanor DUI, therefore there was no presumptive sentence.
In this case, the justice court did not impose a sentence that violated
statutory mandates.

3
 MORENO MEZA v. HON. LAFAVE/STATE
Decision of the Court

¶10 Neither A.R.S. § 13-4032(4) nor -4032(5) authorized the State’s
appeal in this case. The superior court erred when it found jurisdiction to
consider the State’s appeal.

¶11 Moreno Meza also argues the superior court precipitated a
violation of his constitutional protections against double jeopardy by
remanding the case back to the justice court for further consideration of the
State’s motion to dismiss. The Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides that a person may not be brought into jeopardy more
than once for the same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V (“No person shall . . .
be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb . . .”); Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 (1969) (finding “the double
jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment represents a fundamental
ideal in our constitutional heritage, and that it should apply to the States.”).
Likewise, the Arizona Constitution also protects a person from being twice
placed in jeopardy for the same offense. Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10; State v.
Minnitt, 203 Ariz. 431, 437, ¶ 27 (2002).

¶12 In the case of a matter tried to a jury, jeopardy attaches when
the jury is sworn. Parent, 206 Ariz. at 475, ¶ 9. But, when a defendant pleads
guilty, jeopardy attaches at the moment the court accepts that plea. Id. This
basic tenet of law is uncontroverted by the State. Still, the State argues that
because the superior court vacated the guilty plea, it is as though no plea
existed and as a consequence jeopardy cannot attach. Not so. The superior
court may not lawfully vacate a conviction without a proper basis in law.
See generally A.R.S. § 12-124. To vacate the justice court’s acceptance of a
guilty plea the superior court must first establish that the justice court acted
outside the scope of its authority in accepting the plea.

¶13 The State agrees that Moreno Meza pled guilty and the justice
court accepted his plea. Accordingly, jeopardy has attached and Moreno
Meza may not be prosecuted twice for the same offense.

4
 MORENO MEZA v. HON. LAFAVE/STATE
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶14 Because the superior court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal and jeopardy had attached upon acceptance of the guilty plea, we
vacate the superior court’s order and reinstate Moreno Meza’s guilty plea,
conviction, judgment, and sentence in the justice court.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AGFV

5