Judicial Performance Review Committee Score:100%
Bio:View Candidate Bio
Survey Response from Judge:View Survey Response or Letter to CAP
WALTER ANSLEY et al v BANNER HEALTH NETWORK et alCase Date: 03/09/2020Case Number: CV-19-0077-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the Arizona statutes for “balance billing” to recover costs in excess of Medicaid reimbursements are constitutional. Decision: Hospitals utilizing “balance bill” is unconstitutional as applied under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
BRUSH & NIB et al v CITY OF PHOENIXCase Date: 09/16/2019Case Number: CV-18-0176-PRQuestion Presented: Whether Phoenix City Code § 18-4(B), which prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against persons based on their status in a “protected” group including a person’s sexual orientation, is constitutional. Decision: The City of Phoenix ordinance as applied unconstitutionally compels speech in violation of the Arizona Constitution Free Speech Clause and the application of the ordinance violates the Plaintiff’s free exercise of religion under Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA). Judge Position: Joined the 4/3 decision.
SABAN et al v ADOR et alCase Date: 02/25/2019Case Number: CV-18-0080-PRQuestion Presented: Whether a surcharge on car rental companies in Maricopa County to fund Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority construction projects violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution or the anti-diversion provision of the Arizona Constitution. Decision: The surcharge on car rental companies is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 6/1 decision.
JOSHUA STANWITZ ET AL v REAGAN/OUTLAW DIRTY MONEYCase Date: 11/21/2018Case Number: CV-18-0222-AP/ELQuestion Presented: Whether to disqualify the “Stop Political Dirty Money” ballot initiative from the November 2018 general election ballot.Decision: The Arizona law that invalidates signatures on initiative petitions when the circulator fails to follow the subpoena requirements in the court case is constitutional. The court disqualified the measure from the ballot. Judge Position: Authored the 7/0 decision.
BIGGS et al v BETLACH/MACIAS et alCase Date: 11/17/2017Case Number: CV-17-0130-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the hospital assessment included in the statutory expansion of Arizona’s Medicaid plan was properly approved without a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature and is unconstitutional. Decision: The “hospital assessment” is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
KIMBERLY McLAUGHLIN v HON. JONES/SUZAN McLAUGHLINCase Date: 09/19/2017Case Number: CV-16-0266-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the constitution requires that the marital paternity presumption, which assumes a man to be the legal parent of a child born to his wife during marriage, also applies to same-sex marriages.Decision: The marital paternity presumption must apply to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples under Obergefell v. Hodges and Pavan v. Smith.Judge Position: Concurred in the 7/0 decision.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence by J. Lopez joined by J. Pelander: Adds that the Arizona Supreme Court is not extending the United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell, rather the United States Supreme Court did so in Pavan and dictates the outcome of this case under the Supremacy Clause.
STATE ex rel BRNOVICH v CITY OF TUCSON/DEWITCase Date: 08/17/2017Case Number: CV-16-0301-SAQuestion Presented: Whether a state statute that prohibits a city from requiring the destruction of firearms is constitutional when there is a conflicting municipal ordinance requiring destruction. Decision: The generally applicable state statute controls over a conflicting municipal ordinance and does not violate the separation of powers or the Court’s rule-making authority under the Arizona Constitution.Judge Position: Concurred in part and in the result of the 7/0 decision. Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence in part and in result by J. Gould joined by J. Lopez: The bond provision is unenforceable because it is incomplete and unintelligible, and this Court does not have the authority to waive the provision.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ET AL v HON. KILEY/STATE ET ALCase Date: 08/02/2017Case Number: CV-16-0314-SAQuestion Presented: Whether Proposition 206 (2016), “The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act,” which increased the minimum wage and established earned paid sick leave, violates the Arizona Constitution’s Revenue Source Rule, Separate Amendment Rule, and Single Subject Rule. Decision: The proposition is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE v HON. KEMP/APOLINAR ALTAMIRANOCase Date: 08/17/2020Case Number: CR-19-0274-PRQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona law regarding mental health evaluations of capital case (first-degree murder) defendants is constitutional given the federal precedent on Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment and intellectual disability. Decision: Arizona law is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 5/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v BOBBY RAY CARTER JRCase Date: 08/13/2020Case Number: CR-18-0508-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the convictions and subsequent sentences constitute multiple punishments for the same offense, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Decision: The convictions as to theft of the vehicles do violate Double Jeopardy protections.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v JOHN MICHAEL ALLENCase Date: 04/14/2020Case Number: CR-17-0556-AP Question Presented: Whether the Arizona capital sentencing structure adequately narrows the class of defendant’s eligible for the death penalty and is therefore unconstitutional under the U.S. or the Arizona Constitutions. Decision: Arizona’s capital sentencing (first-degree murder) structure does adequately narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty and does not violate the U.S. or Arizona Constitutions.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v THOMAS MICHAEL RILEYCase Date: 03/10/2020Case Number: CR-15-0411-APQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona laws for capital cases (first-degree murder) regarding 1) aggravating circumstances of a crime “committed in a cold, calculated manner without pretense of moral or legal justification”; 2) the presentation of mitigation evidence; and 3) the narrowing of the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty are unconstitutional under the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions.Decision: The Arizona laws are constitutional. Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v RICHARD ALLEN REEDCase Date: 01/24/2020Case Number: CR-19-0059-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the legislature had authority to enact Arizona law that dismissed a pending appeal upon a defendant’s death, and, if so, whether the law nevertheless violates the Arizona Constitution by divesting defendants of their right to appeal. Decision: The legislature’s enactment of dismissal was unconstitutional but the legislature’s enactment to prohibit abatement of a defendant’s conviction and sentence was permissible.Judge Position: Joined in the 5/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAMES CLAYTON JOHNSONCase Date: 08/23/2019Case Number: CR-16-0261-APQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona law in capital cases (first-degree murder) regarding aggravating circumstances for offenses committed in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner is constitutional.Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v ALAN MATTHEW CHAMPAGNECase Date: 08/07/2019Case Number: CR-17-0425-APQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona capital cases (first-degree murder) regarding aggravating circumstances of the crime committed in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner is constitutional.Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v ALFONSO DE ANDA IIICase Date: 02/28/2019Case Number: CR-18-0286-PRQuestion Presented: Whether the sequence of the officer’s statements in itself rendered the Defendant’s consent involuntary and unconstitutional. Decision: The search was voluntary and constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v HON. WEIN/GOODMANCase Date: 05/25/2018Case Number: CR-17-0221-PRQuestion Presented: Whether provisions of Arizona law categorically prohibiting bail for defendant’s accused of sexual assault, where proof is evident and the presumption is great that they committed such crime, is unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.Decision: Arizona law categorically prohibiting bail for defendants accused of sexual assault does violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee.Judge Position: Dissented in the 4/3 decision. Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Dissent by J. Bolick joined by J. Gould and J. Lopez: Those likely to be adjudged guilty of sexual assault can be constitutional held without bail because sexual assault is by definition an extremely dangerous crime and meets the standard for withholding bail, and the dissent asks the United States Supreme Court to correct the majority’s error of finding that prohibiting bail is a violation of due process. Dissent by J. Gould joined by J. Lopez: The provision is facially constitutional but would not apply the over-breadth analysis of the J. Bolick’s dissent.
STATE OF ARIZONA v ANDRE LEE JUWAUN MAESTASCase Date: 05/23/2018Case Number: CR-17-0193-PRQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona law that prohibits possession or use of medical marijuana at certain locations conflicts with the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and, therefore, violates the Arizona Voter Protection Act (“VPA”) and is unconstitutional.Decision: The Arizona law does violate the VPA and is unconstitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v CHRISTOPHER AREVALOCase Date: 09/01/2020Case Number: CR-19-0156-PRQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona law that increases the sentence for threatening or intimidating if the defendant is a criminal street gang member is constitutional.Decision: Arizona law that enhances criminal penalties based solely on criminal street gang membership are facially unconstitutional as a violation of substantive due process.Judge Position: Authored the 7/0 decision.