State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr.
301 P.3d 226
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- Whitman was convicted after a jury trial of four counts of aggravated DUI and sentenced to four months’ incarceration and five years’ probation, all concurrent.
- The minute entry documenting sentencing was filed December 9, 2011; Whitman filed his notice of appeal on December 28, 2011.
- The State argued the appeal was untimely under Rule 31.3 because the 20-day period runs from the sentence date, not the minute-entry filing date.
- The court held that timeliness is determined by the filing of the minute entry documenting judgment and sentence.
- The issue was whether the “entry of judgment and sentence” occurs at pronouncement or at clerical entry of the minute entry; the majority adopts the clerical-entry view.
- Whitman’s suppression motion challenged the traffic stop as unconstitutional; the issue also required resolution on whether the stop was valid and whether suppression was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the notice of appeal period begin under Rule 31.3? | Whitman argues the deadline runs from pronouncement. | State/Brown I- II approach supports clerical-entry timing. | Timely under minute-entry filing (clerical-entry timing) |
| Was the traffic stop justified and was suppression proper? | Whitman asserts lack of valid basis for stop. | Officer observed a traffic violation supporting stop; also objectivity controls. | Stop upheld; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bolding, 227 Ariz. 82, 253 P.3d 279 (App. 2011) (final judgment timing discussed in context of timing rules)
- State v. Glasscock, 168 Ariz. 265, 812 P.2d 1083 (App. 1990) (judgment final upon oral pronouncement and entry in minutes (dicta cited))
- State v. Perez, 172 Ariz. 290, 836 P.2d 1000 (App. 1992) (timing of appeal related to judgment entry discussed in rule context)
- State v. Falkner, 112 Ariz. 372, 542 P.2d 404 (198 B? 1975) (early rule interpretation on finality and timing issues)
- State v. Jefferson, 108 Ariz. 600, 503 P.2d 942 (1972) (pronouncement vs. minutes approach discussed)
- State v. Brown (Brown I), 23 Ariz.App. 225, 532 P.2d 167 (1975) (ambiguity/alternative remedies context prior to Brown II)
- State v. Brown (Brown II), 112 Ariz. 29, 536 P.2d 1047 (1975) (adopts approach approving alternative remedies due to rule ambiguity)