270 P.3d 849
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Ramon Limon was charged with marijuana offenses and moved to suppress evidence from a vehicle search on Fourth Amendment grounds and Miranda issues.
- The trial court granted the suppression motion on January 20, 2011; the State filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on March 23, 2011.
- On March 30, 2011, the State filed a notice of appeal from the January 20 and March 23 rulings and moved to dismiss for purposes of appeal; the court dismissed the action without prejudice on April 4, 2011.
- The State relied on §13-4032(6) to appeal an order granting a motion to suppress; Rule 31.3 Crim. P. governs the timeliness of notices of appeal.
- The State’s notice of appeal was filed more than 20 days after the suppression order, rendering the appeal untimely and the court without jurisdiction.
- The appellate court concluded that dismissal for purposes of appeal does not reset the appeal period, and the time to appeal began with the January 20, 2011 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s notice of appeal was timely under §13-4032(6) and Rule 31.3 Crim. P. | State contends timing starts at the appealable order and should include the suppression order and reconsideration order within the 20-day window. | Limon contends the notice was untimely because filed well beyond 20 days after the suppression order. | Untimely; lack of jurisdiction; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. State, 133 Ariz. 264 (App. 1982) (timing of notices of appeal; start clock from the appealable order)
- State v. Gilbert, 172 Ariz. 402 (App. 1991) (dismissal without prejudice does not start appeal clock; later appealable dismissal governs)
- Barassi v. Matison, 130 Ariz. 418 (App. 1981) (premature notice of appeal; Barassi discussed exceptions for premature notices)
- Neely v. Rodriguez, 165 Ariz. 74 (App. 1990) (motions for rehearing do not suspend time to appeal absent rule)
- Ault, 157 Ariz. 516 (App. 1988) (part of statutory list for appealability; exclusion principle)
- Sorensen v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 191 Ariz. 464 (App. 1997) (independent duty to determine jurisdiction in appeals)
- Hall Family Props., Ltd. v. Gosnell Dev. Corp., 185 Ariz. 382 (App. 1995) (strict statutory nature of the right to appeal)