Judge declined to respond to the Center for Arizona Policy survey.
FREEPORT MINERALS CORP. v ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION; TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER
Case Date: 04/05/2018Case Number: 2 CA-CC 2017-0001Question Presented: Whether the Commission’s decision to adopt a gradual rate allocation scheme for certain classes of customers to subsidize the rates of other customers violates the Arizona Constitution.Decision: The Commission’s decision did not violate the constitution.Judge Position: Concurred in the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOEY LEE HEALER
Case Date: 04/11/2019Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2018-0134Question Presented: Whether Arizona law governing juvenile offenders sentenced to life violates the federal and state constitutions.Decision: The Arizona law does not violate either constitution.Judge Position: Concurred in the 3/0 decision.
CLAUDIA DUFF v. TUCSON POLICE DEPT.; CITY OF TUCSON
Case Date: 03/29/2019Case Number: 2 CA-SA 2018-0058Question Presented: Whether Pima County’s Fast Trial and Alternative Resolution Program (FASTAR) violates the Arizona Constitution.Decision: The FASTAR program does not violate the Arizona Constitution.Judge Position: Concurred in the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. BOBBY RAY CARTER JR.
Case Date: 09/19/2018Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2017-0149Question Presented: Whether constitutional protections against double jeopardy were violated by the defendant’s sentences and convictions for armed robbery, theft, and theft of means of transportation related to a single transaction involving one vehicle, and theft and theft of means of transportation related to a separate transaction involving another vehicle.Decision: The convictions did violate constitutional protections. Note the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the decision.Judge Position: Authored the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. ALFONSO DE ANDA III
Case Date: 05/03/2018Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2017-0207Question Presented: Whether advising a suspect of the consequences of refusing a blood or breath test under Arizona’s implied-consent statute prior to asking for consent violates the United States Constitution.Decision: The advisement did not result in involuntary consent and did not violate the constitution. Note the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed this decision.Judge Position: Concurred in the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. EARL JEFFERSON CAUSBIE
Case Date: 12/05/2016Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2016-0106Question Presented: Whether Arizona law, which provides that sexual intercourse is “[w]ithout consent” if the victim is “incapable of consent by reason of . . . alcohol,” is unconstitutionally vague.Decision: The statute is not unconstitutionally vague.Judge Position: Concurred in the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. MANUEL FERNANDO FLOREZ
Case Date: 10/25/2016Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2015-0480Question Presented: Whether the defendant’s sentences for two counts of sexual conduct with a minor under age fifteen and three counts of molestation of a child constitute cruel and unusual punishment.Decision: There were no constitutional violations.Judge Position: Concurred in the 3/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. DANIEL ALBERTO REYES
Case Date: 12/24/2015Case Number: 2 CA-CR 2014-0238Question Presented: Whether the officer’s arrest of a driver for driving under the influence without a warrant met constitutional requirements. Decision: Constitutional requirements were followed.Judge Position: Concurred in the 3/0 decision.
PINAL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. GEORGINI and T.J.
Case Date: 09/18/2014Case Number: 2 CA-SA 2014-0010Question Presented: Whether the judge abused his discretion in appointing a public defender to represent an indigent party in a proceeding to restore her right to possess a firearm.Decision: The judge abused his discretion, as there is no constitutional entitlement to appointment of counsel in this instance. Judge Position: Concurred in the 3/0 decision.