Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Kevin Dunbar, who was convicted of multiple felonies. Dunbar requested to represent himself during the final stages of his resentencing, but the trial court denied his request. Dunbar appealed this decision, arguing that his right to self-representation had been violated. The court of appeals agreed with Dunbar, concluding that the trial court's denial constituted structural error and remanded the case back to the trial court for reconsideration of Dunbar's request.Previously, the court of appeals had upheld Dunbar's convictions but remanded for resentencing on different grounds. The court had found that Dunbar had forfeited his right to self-representation due to his inconsistent positions and his signed waiver of the right to self-representation.The Supreme Court of Arizona was tasked with deciding whether the denial of the right to self-representation at sentencing is subject to harmless error or structural error review. The court held that erroneous denials of the right to self-representation at sentencing constitute structural error. However, the court also clarified that not all denials of self-representation requests are erroneous and provided guidance on the analysis a trial court must employ in determining whether it should grant a defendant’s untimely self-representation request.The court vacated parts of the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case back to the trial court for reconsideration of Dunbar's request to represent himself. The trial court was instructed to consider whether denying Dunbar's request would substantially undermine his right to present his case at sentencing. If the trial court determines Dunbar's motion should have been granted, structural error has occurred, and Dunbar is entitled to resentencing. If the trial court again determines that Dunbar's motion should not have been granted, Dunbar's sentences stand. View "STATE OF ARIZONA v DUNBAR" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the issue of whether reimbursements paid to a hotel for a loyalty program member’s complimentary stay constitute gross income for purposes of Arizona’s transaction privilege tax (TPT). The hotel in question, Dove Mountain, participates in the Marriott Rewards Program. As part of the program, Dove Mountain and other participating hotels fund the program's marketing efforts by paying a percentage of room revenues and providing rooms for complimentary stays to program members. When a member redeems points for a complimentary stay at Dove Mountain, Marriott Rewards issues a reimbursement payment to the hotel.The Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) denied Dove Mountain's request for a refund of TPT paid on certain reimbursements between 2012 and 2016. Dove Mountain appealed ADOR’s decision to the tax court, arguing that the reimbursements were part of a rewards program not subject to TPT. The tax court concluded that Dove Mountain was not eligible for a refund and entered judgment for ADOR. The court of appeals affirmed the tax court's decision, holding that the reimbursements fell within the statutory definitions of gross receipts and gross income and were subject to TPT.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the reimbursements paid by Marriott Rewards to Dove Mountain constitute gross income for TPT purposes. The court distinguished the case from a previous case, Consumers Market, which Dove Mountain argued was materially indistinguishable. The court found that the nature and operation of the Rewards Program undermined Dove Mountain’s effort to characterize its Points-earning transactions, subsequent redemptions, and Reimbursements as analogous to the “whole transaction” at issue in Consumers Market. The court concluded that Dove Mountain's various characterizations of Reimbursements as “post-tax” reserves, returns of capital, or bank deposits were not supported by the facts or the law. View "DOVE MOUNTAIN v ADOR" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between investigative journalist Amy Silverman and the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES). Silverman requested access to records maintained by the Adult Protective Services (APS), a program within ADES, for her research on issues affecting individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. ADES denied her request, citing a state law that generally shields APS records from public inspection, except for certain exceptions, including one for "bona fide research." Silverman sued ADES, arguing that her journalistic activities qualified as "bona fide research."The Superior Court in Maricopa County ruled in favor of Silverman, finding that her journalistic activities qualified as "bona fide research" and ordered ADES to produce the requested documents after redacting personally identifying information. ADES appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the Superior Court. The Court of Appeals concluded that "research" under the exception must be conducted for "educational, administrative, or scientific purposes" and that ADES still has discretion whether to disclose APS records.Both parties were dissatisfied with the Court of Appeals' decision and filed petitions for review with the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. The Supreme Court concluded that "bona fide research" under the relevant statute occurs when the researcher engages in a good faith and genuine study to acquire more knowledge, discover new facts, or test new ideas concerning reporting or stopping the abuse, exploitation, or neglect of vulnerable adults. The court also held that anyone, including journalists, can qualify under the bona fide research exception. However, the court found that ADES has discretion whether, and on what conditions, to release APS records for bona fide research. The court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion, affirmed the Superior Court's judgment insofar as it denied ADES's motion to dismiss, but reversed the judgment for Silverman and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "SILVERMAN v ADES" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Manuel Perez-Gutierrez, who was convicted on eight counts of sexual conduct with a minor. The trial court sentenced Perez-Gutierrez to two twenty-year terms of imprisonment for the first two counts and one-year sentences for the remaining six counts, all to be served consecutively. The court had discretion to impose the remaining sentences consecutively or concurrently but failed to state on record the reason for its determination, as required by A.R.S. § 13-711(A). Perez-Gutierrez appealed this omission.The Court of Appeals agreed with Perez-Gutierrez and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to record the reasons for its sentencing determination. The court of appeals' decision was based on the precedent set in cases like State v. Anzivino and State v. Harrison, which established a limited-remand practice for such violations. However, a dissenting judge argued that the violation should be reviewed for fundamental error, not requiring a remand.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona held that a violation of A.R.S. § 13-711(A) is neither a structural error nor a trial error. Instead, it is akin to an administrative error that a trial court can correct without affecting the disposition. Therefore, the court concluded that a remand for the limited purpose of statutory compliance is appropriate. The court also clarified that the remedy for such a violation does not require resentencing but merely a statement on record explaining the sentencing determination. The court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion and remanded the case with instructions to suspend the appeal and revest jurisdiction in the trial court to comply with § 13-711(A). View "State v. Perez-Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The case involves the Arizona Republican Party (ARP) and its attorneys, who challenged the manner in which Maricopa County election officials conducted a mandatory hand count of ballots following the 2020 general election. The ARP argued that the hand count should have been based on precincts rather than voting centers, as prescribed by the Election Procedures Manual (EPM). The trial court dismissed the ARP's complaint and awarded attorney fees against the ARP and its attorneys under A.R.S. § 12-349(A)(1) and (F), which provides for such fees if a claim is groundless and not made in good faith. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona held that the attorney fees award was improper because the ARP's claim was not groundless, thus there was no need to determine whether the claim was made in the absence of good faith. The court found that the ARP's claim was more than "barely" colorable, as there was a plain-language conflict between § 16-602(B), which requires a precinct hand count, and the 2019 EPM, which permits a voting center hand count. The court also disagreed with the lower courts' rulings that the ARP's claim was groundless due to the unavailability of remedies, the applicability of the election-law time bar on post-election challenges to pre-election procedures, and laches. The court vacated the trial court’s and the court of appeals’ attorney fees awards. View "ARIZONA REPUBLICAN PARTY v RICHER" on Justia Law

Larry Dean Anderson was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release for twenty-five years. Anderson filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition, claiming that his attorney erroneously advised him that he was eligible for parole, which led him to reject a plea agreement. The issue was whether this claim for PCR based on ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) was either precluded or untimely.The Superior Court in Pima County initially dismissed Anderson's request for an evidentiary hearing and denied relief. The court determined that Anderson's IAC claim was not precluded or untimely, but it also determined that Anderson's IAC claim was not colorable. The court of appeals denied relief, determining Anderson's IAC claim was untimely and his delay unexcused. It also held his claim was precluded because he failed to raise it in his previous petitions for PCR.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reversed and remanded the case. The court held that Anderson's PCR claim was neither untimely nor precluded and he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he had been offered a plea agreement before his trial. The court found that Anderson's attorney's performance was deficient under Strickland because his error constituted incorrect advice on a significant issue relating to Anderson's potential sentence if convicted. The court also found that Anderson had presented enough evidence for an opportunity to establish the existence of an offered plea agreement at an evidentiary hearing. View "STATE OF ARIZONA v ANDERSON" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Tamira Durand, who was indicted for several fraud-related offenses, including illegally obtaining a credit card in the name of Scott Blum, a prosecutor with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO), the agency responsible for prosecuting Durand. Durand argued that her due process rights would be violated if she was prosecuted by an agency with a conflict of interest, given that Blum, one of the victims in her case, was a prosecutor with MCAO. The trial court granted Durand’s motion, disqualifying MCAO from the case. The State appealed this decision.The trial court's decision to disqualify MCAO was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which accepted jurisdiction but denied relief. The State then petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reversed the trial court's decision, stating that the trial court had erred by not considering the Gomez factors, a set of considerations established in a previous case, Gomez v. Superior Court, when deciding whether to disqualify MCAO. The court held that the trial court should have considered these factors, which include whether the motion is being made for the purposes of harassing the defendant, whether the party bringing the motion will be damaged in some way if the motion is not granted, whether there are any alternative solutions, and whether the possibility of public suspicion will outweigh any benefits that might accrue due to continued representation. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings, with instructions to apply the Gomez factors and consider Durand’s due process rights. View "State ex rel Mitchell v. Palmer" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over insurance coverage following a fatal jet ski accident. The owner of A.C. Watercraft Rental, Sayed Mohammed, had sought liability insurance for all his business-owned watercraft through Farm Bureau Property and Casualty Insurance Company, which connected him with Great Divide Insurance Company. However, a Yamaha watercraft involved in a fatal accident was not listed in the policy schedule. Following the accident, Mohammed filed a claim with Great Divide for defense and indemnification, which was denied due to the jet ski not being listed in the policy. Subsequently, the deceased's father, Garbis Satamian, sued A.C. Watercraft, which had to bear its own defense costs.The Superior Court in Maricopa County dismissed Satamian's claims against Great Divide, Farm Bureau, and Risk Placement Services (RPS) on the grounds of statute of limitations. The court found that A.C. Watercraft learned of the negligent procurement of insurance when Great Divide denied coverage in January 2016, and that it “sustained injury in May 2017, when [A.C. Watercraft] incurred attorneys’ fees and costs defending itself.” The court ruled that both the negligent procurement of insurance claim and the promissory estoppel claim were time-barred because each accrued no later than May 2017.Satamian appealed the dismissal, arguing that the discovery rule should have tolled the statute of limitations and that the claims could not have accrued until his underlying action against A.C. Watercraft was final and non-appealable. The Court of Appeals rejected Satamian’s arguments and affirmed the lower court's decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the negligent procurement of insurance and promissory estoppel claims accrued when an insured incurs its own litigation costs for defense against a claim due to an insurer’s negligent failure to obtain insurance coverage. The court found that A.C. Watercraft knew or should have known both the “who” and the “what” of the negligent procurement cause of action by May 2017, and expired by May 2019. The promissory estoppel claim began to accrue by May 2017, and expired by May 2020. Because Satamian filed this lawsuit in June 2021, both claims were time-barred. View "Satamian v. Great Divide Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona considered whether the Arizona Legislature repealed or otherwise restricted A.R.S. § 13-3603 by enacting the abortion statutes in Title 36, specifically A.R.S. § 36-2322, which prohibits physicians from performing elective abortions after fifteen weeks’ gestation. The case arose from a motion for relief under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)–(6), seeking to set aside the permanent injunction against § 13-3603 imposed in 1973 following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.Previously, the trial court granted the motion, vacating the judgment in its entirety to allow full enforcement of § 13-3603. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that licensed physicians who perform abortions in compliance with Title 36 are not subject to prosecution under § 13-3603.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona held that § 36-2322 does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that repeals or restricts § 13-3603. The court concluded that absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because § 36-2322 does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting § 13-3603’s operation. Accordingly, § 13-3603 is now enforceable. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment vacating the injunction of § 13-3603, vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and stay of enforcement of § 13-3603, and remanded to the trial court for potential consideration of the remaining constitutional challenges to §13-3603 alleged in Planned Parenthood’s complaint for declaratory relief. View "Planned Parenthood v. Mayes" on Justia Law

In Arizona, condominium unit owners Jie Cao and Haining Xia challenged the forced sale of their unit by their condominium association (the “Association”) following the dissolution of the condominium. The Association, which had been given power to sell under the Arizona Condominium Act, sold the unit to PFP Dorsey Investments, a company that had previously acquired the majority of units in the condominium.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona held that the Arizona Condominium Act, which authorized the sale, did not violate the eminent domain provision of the Arizona Constitution. The court stated that the Act was incorporated into the condominium declaration, to which the owners had agreed. However, the court also held that in these circumstances, the Act required the sale of all property, rather than individual units as occurred in this case.The court noted that the Association's power to sell derived from the condominium declaration that all unit owners had signed. Thus, the Act didn't effect a taking of the owners' property. As such, the forced sale of the owners’ unit alone rather than as part of a sale of all common elements and units of the condominium was impermissible under the Act.The court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court also granted the owners reasonable attorney fees for amounts expended to enforce the Declaration, excluding those attributable to the unsuccessful eminent domain claims. View "CAO v PFP DORSEY" on Justia Law