Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona
233 Ariz. 468
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- State filed a petition alleging Fuller is a sexually violent person (SVP) on January 19, 2012, and he was detained.
- Public defender was not appointed and Fuller did not receive a probable cause hearing or court notice with proper contact information.
- Fuller remained in custody for over a year with no court dates or prosecution steps taken by the state.
- In March 2013 the state moved to set a hearing and appoint counsel; the court subsequently appointed the public defender and Fuller moved to dismiss.
- Trial court held that § 36-3706 was directory and could be continued if no substantial prejudice, leading to denial of habeas relief; the appellate court granted relief and released Fuller.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the state violate the 120-day deadline in § 36-3706? | Fuller: deadline mandatory; violation voids petition. | State: deadline directory; continuances possible with no prejudice. | Statutory violation found; prejudice shown; remedy dismissal ordered. |
| Whether delay caused substantial prejudice to Fuller warranting dismissal. | Fuller suffered prejudice due to lack of treatment and delayed access to SVP services. | Delay may be justified if no substantial prejudice; focus on defense preparation. | Substantial prejudice established in SVP context; dismissal required. |
| Whether the court could continue the case after the deadline or erred by authorizing a first-time trial date after the deadline. | Continuation after deadline improper; no prior trial date existed to continue. | Court could continue under § 36-3706 with no substantial prejudice. | Court allowed no valid continuation; violation occurred; remedy required. |
Key Cases Cited
- HCZ Constr., Inc. v. First Franklin Fin. Corp., 199 Ariz. 361 (App. 2001) (mandatory vs. directory distinction in time provisions; prejudice governs remedy)
- S. Union Gas Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 119 Ariz. 512 (1978) (prejudice required to dismiss despite time-limit technicality)
- Joshua J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 417 (App. 2012) (prejudice analysis for time-limit violations in non-criminal proceedings)
- Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., 191 Ariz. 77 (App. 1997) (consent/hearing timing can affect validity of procedures)
- Ugalde v. Burke, 204 Ariz. 455 (App. 2003) (special actions and timely process duties in court management)
- State v. Soto, 117 Ariz. 345 (1977) (prejudice assessment in speedy-trial context relevant to delay analysis)