Cited by

¶7 P.3d 1119 (2004), the state maintains Felix waived his double jeopardy claim because he did not seek special action relief after the trial court rejected his guilty plea.

DISCUSSION ¶ 5 We review the trial court’s interpretation of statutes de novo, see Langmade v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , and the exercise of judicial discretion for an abuse of that discretion, ¶ 62

¶ 22 , (“[A] petition for special action is the appropriate vehicle for a defendant to obtain judicial appellate review of an interlocutory double jeopardy claim.

The scope of disclosure required under Rule 15.1(a)(3) is a question of law that we review de novo, see State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 445, ¶ 62, while we review the judge’s assessment of the adequacy of disclosure for an abuse of discretion

(“Although we review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under exceptions to the hearsay rule for abuse of discretion, we review a trial court’s determination of a Confrontation Clause violation de novo.”)

n that the state may not retry him on the felony charge of aggravated DUI under § 28-1383(A)(3).9 ¶25 Although May neither argues nor cites the Double Jeopardy Clause in support of his argument, that clause “‘forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding.’” quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11, 98 S. Ct. 2141, 2147, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1, 9 (1978).