 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hantman4/1/2003
RELIEF GRANTED
The State of Arizona petitions this court for special action relief in its attempt to reinstate a misdemeanor prosecution for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .10 or more against real party in interest Allan Clyde Riedel. A justice of the peace ordered the charges dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, an order that was subsequently affirmed by the respondent superior court judge on appeal. For the following reasons, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief.
Because this case originated in justice court, the state appealed the dismissal to superior court. See A.R.S. § 22-371(A). Consequently, the state has no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal, because it has no further right to appeal. See A.R.S. § 22-375 (limited scope of such appeals does not encompass appeals from superior court's ruling); State v. Superior Court, 188 Ariz. 372, 936 P.2d 558 (App. 1997) (special action only means by which state may obtain further review). Moreover, the issue raised is a pure issue of law, thereby presenting a question appropriate for special action review. See United States v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 265, 697 P.2d 658 (1985). Accordingly, in our discretion, we accept jurisdiction of the special action. See Ariz. R. P. Special Actions 1(a), 17B A.R.S.
Under A.R.S. § 13-107(B)(2), the state has one year to commence a misdemeanor prosecution. At issue here is the applicability and effect of § 13-107(G), the so-called "savings clause," which permits the state to refile a dismissed charge outside the one-year limitations period under certain circumstances. See Johnson v. Tucson City Court, 156 Ariz. 284, 751 P.2d 600 (App. 1988) (interpreting former § 13-107(F), now (G); 1997 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 135, § 1). Section 13-107(G) provides:
If a complaint, indictment or information filed before the period of limitation has expired is dismissed for any reason, a new prosecution may be commenced within six months after the dismissal becomes final even if the period of limitation has expired at the time of the dismissal or will expire within six months of the dismissal.
The state and Riedel agree on the following procedural history of Riedel's case in justice court:
11/27/99 Riedel arrested and charged with DUI offenses in cause TR99-050547
02/25/00 Cause TR99-050547 dismissed without prejudice
03/13/00 Same DUI charges refiled against Riedel in cause TR00-012019
01/15/02 Cause TR00-012019 dismissed without prejudice
03/27/02 Same DUI charges again refiled against Riedel in cause TR02-017969
On June 21, 2002, the justice of the peace granted Riedel's motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice, stating: "This case violates the statute of limitations. The second refile on March 27, 2002 is not allowable under any application of the six-month 'savings clause.'"
Relying on this court's decisions in Johnson and Uhlig v. Lindberg, 189 Ariz. 480, 943 P.2d 840 (App. 1997), the respondent judge denied the state's subsequent appeal in an order stating that, because the state had "re-filed the [charges] . . . within the one-year statute of limitations period[,] . . . the savings clause has no application to the State's later dismissal outside the statute of limitations." However, Johnson and Uhlig actually compel the opposite conclusion.
In Johnson, a defendant's charges were dismissed without prejudice after the limitations period had expired. The state then refiled the charges within six months of the dismissal. For reasons relating to
Page 1 2 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|