State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr.
324 P.3d 851
Ariz.2014Background
- Brady Whitman Jr. was convicted of four counts of aggravated DUI and sentenced on December 7, 2011; the clerk filed the minute entry memorializing the sentence on December 9.
- Whitman filed a notice of appeal on December 28 (21 days after sentencing but 19 days after the minute entry was filed).
- The State moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3 (notice must be filed within 20 days after the “entry of judgment and sentence”).
- The court of appeals held Rule 31.3 ambiguous and measured the appeal period from the clerk’s filing of the minute entry, thus deeming Whitman’s notice timely.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether “entry” means the oral pronouncement of sentence or the clerk’s minute entry, because the answer determines when the 20-day appeal clock starts.
- The Supreme Court concluded that “entry” occurs at the oral pronouncement of sentence, rendering Whitman’s notice untimely but noting Rule 32.1(f) relief may allow a late appeal if the defendant was without fault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Whitman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 20-day appeal period under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3 begin — at oral pronouncement or clerk’s minute entry? | Time runs from the clerk’s filing (minute entry); measuring from filing is reasonable and promotes certainty. | Time runs from the oral pronouncement at sentencing; defendant relied on sentencing date and forms informing him of that rule. | The 20-day period begins at oral pronouncement of sentence; notice filed after that period is untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264 (discusses ambiguity when text allows more than one reasonable interpretation)
- Sparks v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 132 Ariz. 529 (defines contractual ambiguity standard)
- Chronis v. Steinle, 220 Ariz. 559 (principles for interpreting court rules; consider context, history, purpose)
- State v. Fitzgerald, 232 Ariz. 208 (standard of review for rule interpretation)
- State v. Johnson, 108 Ariz. 116 (pre-1973 rule treating judgments as final when orally pronounced and entered)
- State v. Williams, 122 Ariz. 146 (post-1973 decisions treating sentencing date as the point from which appeal time runs)
- State v. Rosario, 195 Ariz. 264 (using oral pronouncement date to measure timeliness for Rule 32 post-conviction filings)