State v. Harries
1 CA-CR 18-0520
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2021Background:
- In 2001 Harries pleaded guilty to solicitation to possess dangerous drugs (class 6 undesignated felony); sentence suspended and probation imposed and later completed.
- In 2016 the State charged Harries with misconduct involving weapons, then dismissed that charge without prejudice in August 2017.
- Harries filed an application to designate his 2001 conviction a misdemeanor and the superior court granted it in September 2017; the State did not respond before the ruling.
- About three months later the State moved to reconsider, asserting Harries failed to disclose a refiled weapons indictment filed August 30, 2017; the superior court vacated the misdemeanor designation in February 2018.
- Harries challenged the vacatur on appeal; the court held the superior court lacked authority to rely on Civil Rule 60/Condos-era inherent power because Arizona Criminal Rule 24 displaces Rule 60 for post-judgment relief, and the State’s motion was untimely under Rule 24.2.
- The appellate court reversed and reinstated the September 2017 misdemeanor designation.
Issues:
| Issue | State's Argument | Harries' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court could vacate its misdemeanor-designation order using Civil Rule 60 or inherent/Condos authority | Condos and Rule 60 permit courts to grant Rule-60-type relief in criminal cases within 6 months; court has inherent authority to revisit judgments | Criminal Rule 24 governs post-judgment relief and displaced Civil Rule 60; court lacked authority beyond Rule 24 limits | Rule 24 governs; Condos/Rule 60 no longer applicable to criminal post-judgment relief |
| Timeliness of the State’s motion to vacate | Motion was within 6 months (Rule 60) and thus timely | Under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 24.2(b) the State had 60 days to move; it waited 88 days, so untimely | Motion untimely under Rule 24.2; superior court lacked authority to vacate |
| Whether the State’s endorsement/notice argument excuses the delay | The application’s endorsement did not name the specific deputy; delay excused because notice problems prevented timely response | General endorsement did not excuse a nearly three-month delay; no authority requires naming the specific deputy | Court rejected State’s endorsement/notice excuse; delay unjustified |
Key Cases Cited
- Condos v. Superior Court, 29 Ariz. 186 (1925) (recognized use of Rule-60-type relief in criminal cases absent criminal rules)
- McKelvey, 30 Ariz. 265 (1926) (limits on applying Condos to executed sentences)
- Sam v. State, 33 Ariz. 421 (1928) (clarifies Condos and appellate jurisdiction limits)
- Lopez, 96 Ariz. 169 (1964) (noting Rule 60 applied only in absence of specific criminal rules)
- Campbell v. Thurman, 96 Ariz. 212 (1964) (where rules exist, common-law powers are unnecessary)
- Falkner, 112 Ariz. 372 (1975) (superior court’s post-trial authority limited to rules)
- State ex rel. Adel v. Hannah, 249 Ariz. 537 (2020) (treatment of a modification as a criminal judgment for post-judgment rules)