Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a petitioner seeking a change of judge in the Arizona Court of Appeals after denial of his motion by a previously removed judge. The petitioner, convicted of first-degree murder with vacated death sentences due to Ring v. Arizona, faced resentencing proceedings. He filed a motion for a change of judge for cause, which was denied by Judge Leonardo, who was earlier removed from the case. The court found the denial of this motion to be non-appealable, thus accepting jurisdiction for a special action. The ruling emphasized that Judge Leonardo lacked authority to adjudicate due to his prior removal and should have reassigned the motion to another judge. Procedurally, the court highlighted the constraints of Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly Rule 10.6, which limits the powers of a removed judge, and Rule 10.1, which outlines the administrative role of the presiding judge. Consequently, the court vacated the orders made by Judge Leonardo and directed that the motion for a change of judge be reassigned to a different judge. The outcome underscores the procedural necessity to adhere to rules governing judicial assignments and the limitations on judges previously removed from cases.
Legal Issues Addressed
Authority of Removed Judgessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that a judge who has been peremptorily removed from a case cannot rule on motions for change of judge for cause, and any substantive rulings made by such a judge must be vacated.
Reasoning: The court concluded that Judge Leonardo should have reassigned the motion to another judge due to his prior removal, thus granting relief to Nordstrom.
Jurisdiction over Special Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court accepted jurisdiction for a special action as the denial of a change of judge was not an appealable order, establishing that the petitioner lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.
Reasoning: The court found that the denial of the change of judge was not an appealable order, establishing that Nordstrom lacked an adequate remedy by appeal, which justified the acceptance of jurisdiction for the special action.
Procedural Requirements under Rule 10.6subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Under Rule 10.6, a judge who has been removed cannot continue to rule on a motion for change of judge unless the motion specifically names them, which was not the case here.
Reasoning: Under Rule 10.1, the presiding judge must provide a hearing before a different judge, and this process was not applicable here since the respondent had been previously removed.
Role of Presiding Judge under Rule 10.1subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The presiding judge's administrative role under Rule 10.1 does not preclude them from acting in matters of procedural assignments despite previous removals, provided they do not make substantive rulings.
Reasoning: The presiding judge reaffirmed the denial, clarifying that his administrative role under Rule 10.1 did not preclude him from acting despite the earlier removal.
Timeliness of Change of Judge Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The denial of a peremptory change of judge motion was upheld as untimely, reinforcing the importance of adhering to procedural timelines for such motions.
Reasoning: Prior to the current motion, Nordstrom had also attempted a peremptory change of judge, which was denied as untimely by Judge Cruikshank.