Cited by

And, as our supreme court explained in considering the precursor to Rule 13.2, “If the court finds probable cause (or if the defendant waives the preliminary examination), the state is required to file an information within the next ten days.”

¶ 14 (2010) (citations omitted).

“‘[S]ubject matter jurisdiction’ refers to a court’s statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.” ¶ 14 (2010).

¶33 “[A] court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction cannot adjudicate the action.” ¶ 14 (2010).

¶21 “‘[S]ubject matter jurisdiction’ refers to a court’s statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.” ¶ 14 (2010).

¶29 Here, the parties do not contest the first two elements of the Hughes test concerning the nunc pro tunc order; the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over Freeman’s criminal case, ¶ 14 (2010) and Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 14, and personal jurisdiction over Freeman and the State.

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to “a court’s statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case,” ¶14 (2010) (emphasis added); and personal jurisdiction refers to “[a] court’s power to bring a person into its adjudicative process,” see Jurisdiction, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (emphasis added).

Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 14(4); ¶ 14 (2010) (“‘[S]ubject matter jurisdiction’ refers to a court’s statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.”).

Subject-matter jurisdiction is “a court’s statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.” ¶ 14 (2010).

¶9 A court’s subject matter jurisdiction refers to its “statutory or constitutional authority to hear a certain type of case.” ¶ 19 (App. 2017); ¶¶ 14–15 (2010); ¶ 21 (App. 2012) (discussing the difference between subject-matter jurisdiction and the court acting beyond constitutional or statutory authority).

6 GARLAN v. GARLAN Decision of the Court caselaw in which the term “jurisdiction” is unartfully used in describing the scope of the superior court’s authority, rather than in its proper context as the “statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.” -13, ¶¶ 14, 15–21 (2010); ¶ 21 (discussing the difference between subject-matter jurisdiction and the court acting beyond statutory authority).

P. 32.1, 32.3; –13 ¶¶ 20–21 (2010).

Article 2, Section 30 of the Arizona Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be prosecuted criminally in any court of record for felony or misdemeanor, otherwise than by information or indictment.” A felony prosecution may begin with an indictment, which “reflects a grand jury’s finding of probable cause to support the charged offense.” ¶ 7 (2010); see also Ariz. R. Crim.

¶ 14 (2010); ("[P]arties cannot by 7 LAY v. HON.

P. 32.1, 32.3; -13, ¶¶ 20-21 (2010).

Subject matter jurisdiction “refers to a court’s statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular case.” In re 5 STROBEL, ¶ 17 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 14 (2010)).

§ 12—1802, "subject matter jurisdiction *616 refers to a court's statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.” ¶ 14 , (quotation and citations omitted).

¶10 A court has subject matter jurisdiction if it has “statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.” ¶ 14 (2010) (citations omitted).