Judicial Performance Review Committee Score:100%
Bio:View Candidate Bio
Survey Response from Judge:View Survey Response or Letter to CAP
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.
IN RE $46,523.00 IN U.S. CURRENCYCase Number: 2 CA-CV 2017-0034Question Presented: Whether the U.S. Constitution requires the state to attempt additional means of notice to the claimants of seized property when the state has knowledge that its initial attempts were ineffective.Decision: The state’s failure to provide additional notice violated the constitution. Judge Position: Dissented in the 2/1 decision.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent by J. Brearcliffe: The state took reasonable and practicable steps in giving notice, in compliance with the Due Process Clause, and the majority goes beyond what is constitutionally commanded.
TIFFANY BREDFELDT and PHILLIP BREDFELDT v. TODD GREENE Case Date: 12/18/2017Case Number: 2 CA-CV 2016-0198 Question Presented: Whether a denial of a motion to dissolve a permanent injunction is an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights.Decision: The denial met constitutional requirements. 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: Specially concurred in the 3/0 decision.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Special Concurrence by J. Brearcliffe: Harmonizing of § 12-133 is not necessary because the statute does not conflict with FASTAR rule changes.