Cited by

Here, a petition for special action is the appropriate vehicle for raising an interlocutory double jeopardy claim “[b]ecause the Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees the right to be free from subsequent prosecution” and, if applicable, “the clause is violated by the mere commencement of retrial.” ¶ 22 (2004)

ugh a special action petition is not the exclusive way for a defendant to obtain appellate review of a double jeopardy claim, -12, ¶ 8 (App. 2006), it “is the appropriate vehicle for a defendant to obtain judicial appellate review of an interlocutory double jeopardy claim,” ¶ 22 (2004) ().

" State v. Moody , , ¶ 22, quoting Nalbandian v. Superior Court , , 130, , 981 (App. 1989).

¶ 22, no case has ever held that a special action petition is the exclusive vehicle for raising such a claim.

1(a); , (normal method of review for criminal interlocutory order is special action).

Our courts have held that “a petition for special action is the appropriate vehicle for a defendant to obtain judicial appellate review of an interlocutory double jeopardy claim.”

(“[A] petition for special action is the appropriate vehicle for a defendant to obtain judicial appellate review of an interlocutory double jeopardy claim.”); , (“The proper vehicle to challenge the denial of a

Special Actions 1(a), 17B A.R.S.; , (special action is method for obtaining appellate review of criminal interlocutory order).

1; , (normal method of review for criminal interlocutory order is special action).

Because petitioner has raised a nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim and does not have an adequate remedy by appeal, , and because we find the respondent judge abused his discretion in permitting the state to withdraw from the plea agreement, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief.

(double jeopardy); -7 , -56 (App.1996) (double jeopardy); , (double jeopardy); , (denial of bond).

cert, denied, 498 U.S. 997 , 111 S.Ct.

cert, denied, 498 U.S. 997 , 111 S.Ct.