Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed a case involving Jose Agundez-Martinez, who was prosecuted as an adult for sexual assault and child molestation offenses he committed as a child between the ages of ten and twelve. The crimes came to light after Agundez-Martinez turned eighteen, and he was indicted at the age of twenty-three. Agundez-Martinez argued that the juvenile court lost jurisdiction over him once he turned eighteen, thereby depriving the superior court of its only mechanism for obtaining jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Arizona held that Proposition 102, known as the "Juvenile Justice Initiative," and the legislation implementing it did not prohibit the state from prosecuting adults for crimes committed when they were juveniles. The court stated that a crime is a crime, regardless of the age of the offender at the time of the offense, and the determination of whether it is adjudicated as a "delinquent act" or prosecuted as a criminal charge depends entirely on the status of the offender at the time the state initiates proceedings.Consequently, the court held that the superior court had jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence Agundez-Martinez for his criminal offenses since he was an adult when indicted. However, the court expressed concern about the lengthy adult prison sentences initially imposed for acts committed by a young child and urged the legislature to provide statutory directives for such situations. The case was remanded to the superior court for resentencing. View "STATE OF ARIZONA v AGUNDEZ-MARTINEZ" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that consecutive sentences imposed for separate crimes, when the cumulative sentences exceed a juvenile's life expectancy, do not violate the Eighth Amendment, as interpreted in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016).Defendants in these cases argued that their sentences violated the Eighth Amendment. At issue was whether Graham, Miller, and Montgomery prohibit aggregated consecutive sentences for separate crimes that exceed a juvenile's life expectancy. The Supreme Court held that Graham, Miller, and Montgomery do not prohibit such de facto life sentences, and therefore, Graham and its progeny do not constitute a significant chance in the law under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g). View "State v. Soto-Fong" on Justia Law

The two defendants in this case were juveniles when they fatally shot their victims. Defendants were each convicted of first degree murder. Defendants were sentenced to natural life imprisonment under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-703, meaning they were not eligible for release. After Miller v. Alabama was decided, each defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g). In each case, the trial court summarily denied relief, concluding that the sentencing court had complied with Miller and that any constitutional infirmity in Arizona’s sentencing scheme had been resolved by 2014 statutory amendments. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals, reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the petitions for post-conviction relief, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Defendants were entitled to evidentiary hearings on their Rule 32.1(g) petitions because they made colorable claims for relief based on Miller. View "State v. Valencia" on Justia Law

In 1993, Defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time, pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and other charges. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison. Defendant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32, claiming that recent scientific findings concerning juvenile psychology and neurology were newly discovered material facts that entitled him to post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to present a colorable claim because the advancements in juvenile psychology and neurology offered by Defendant merely supplement then-existing knowledge of juvenile behavior that was considered at the time of Defendant’s sentencing. View "State v. Amaral" on Justia Law

Ariz. Rev. Stat 8-238 requires juveniles charged with certain offenses and summoned to appear at an advisory hearing to submit to the investigating law enforcement agency a sample of buccal cells or other bodily substances for DNA testing and extraction. The penalty for failure to comply is revocation of release pending adjudication. In this case seven juveniles were separately charged with violations of offenses specified in section 8-238(A). Each was summoned to an advisory hearing, released, and ordered to submit a buccal sample to law enforcement within five days. In each case, the superior court rejected Fourth Amendment objections to the sampling order. The Juveniles jointly filed a special action in the court of appeals, which held that requiring the submission of DNA samples from juveniles for whom a probable cause determination has been made does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals, holding that the statutory scheme violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. View "Mario W. v. Superior Court (Kaipio)" on Justia Law