Harvey v. Hon. kalauli/state
1 CA-CV 15-0848
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- Harvey was arraigned March 15, 2015, on misdemeanor assault and disorderly conduct charges and released on own recognizance.
- Municipal court set trial for October 28, 2015; the 180-day speedy-trial deadline under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.2(a)(2) fell on September 11, 2015.
- On September 15, 2015, Harvey moved to dismiss under Rule 8.6 for violation of the 180-day requirement; the municipal court denied the motion (municipal record largely not included on appeal).
- Harvey filed a special action in superior court on October 21, 2015 but did not seek a stay; the municipal trial proceeded October 28 and the municipal judge had not yet issued a written decision when the superior court heard the special action.
- The superior court accepted jurisdiction but denied relief, citing the incomplete municipal-court record and presuming the missing record supported the municipal judge’s exercise of discretion.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that absent a complete record it must presume the trial court’s decision was supported and that the superior court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal court violated Rule 8.2 speedy-trial deadline and dismissal under Rule 8.6 was required | Harvey: trial was set after 180 days; motion to dismiss should be granted | State: defendant failed to notify court of impending deadline per Rule 8.1(d); municipal court may have excluded time for defendant’s conduct | Denied; appellate courts presume missing record supports municipal court; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Whether defense counsel had an obligation under Rule 8.1(d) to advise court before deadline | Harvey: relying on Tucker, no intervening delays so no reporting obligation | State: defendants must notify court of imminent deadline to preserve objection; failure may justify denial of dismissal | Court upheld that failure to advise can justify denying dismissal; record insufficient to overturn municipal court |
| Whether superior court should have granted special action relief despite incomplete municipal record | Harvey: superior court erred in refusing relief | State: superior court properly relied on presumption that missing record supports trial court decision | Affirmed: absent complete record, appellate presumption supports municipal court decision |
| Whether Techy/Spreitz sanctions logic could justify denying dismissal for intentional non-notification | Harvey: disputes municipal court’s factual finding of intentional conduct | State: municipal court referenced Techy/Spreitz and may have found intentional omission warranting exclusion of time | Held: possible municipal finding of intentional conduct cannot be reviewed without record; presumption of correct exercise of discretion stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tucker, 133 Ariz. 304 (discusses when reporting obligation under Rule 8.1(d) applies)
- State v. Swensrud, 168 Ariz. 21 (defendant cannot wait until after Rule 8.2 period to claim violation)
- State v. Vasko, 193 Ariz. 142 (Rule 8 requires notification of impending speedy-trial deadline to preserve objection)
- State v. Techy, 135 Ariz. 81 (intentional failure to notify can lead to exclusion of time and denial of dismissal)
- State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court, 118 Ariz. 259 (appellate courts must presume missing record supports trial court)
- Renner v. Kehl, 150 Ariz. 94 (without a record, courts presume substantial evidence supported trial court findings)