Robert Brutinel

Meet the Justice

Judicial Performance Review Committee Score:
100%
Bio:
View Candidate Bio
Survey Response from Judge:
Judge declined to respond to the Center for Arizona Policy survey.

Judicial Decisions

WALTER ANSLEY et al v BANNER HEALTH NETWORK et al
Case 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.
SABAN et al v ADOR et al
Case 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 MONEY
Case 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: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
BIGGS et al v BETLACH/MACIAS et al
Case 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.
MARIANNE N. v DCS/O.N./I.T./A.G.
Case Date: 09/25/2017Case Number: CV-16-0259-PRQuestion Presented: Whether a parent’s failure to appear at a hearing to terminate parental rights can result in a waiver of parental rights in other, pretrial proceedings, and if doing so is constitutional under the separation of powers doctrine. Decision: The statutory law and rules of juvenile court procedure permit such a result, and there is no separation of powers violation under Arizona Constitution article 3.Judge Position: Joined in the 4/3 decision.
KIMBERLY McLAUGHLIN v HON. JONES/SUZAN McLAUGHLIN
Case 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: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE ex rel BRNOVICH v CITY OF TUCSON/DEWIT
Case 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: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ET AL v HON. KILEY/STATE ET AL
Case 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.
ROBERT GRAHAM v. FRANK TAMBURRI
Case Date: 08/26/2016Case Number: CV-16-0143-AP/ELQuestion Presented: Whether the 2015 modified signature requirements governing ballot access of political candidates is constitutional. Decision: The amendments are constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 5/0 decision.
STEVE GALLARDO et al v. STATE OF ARIZONA et al
Case Date: 10/30/2014Case Number: CV-14-0208-PR/AQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona law that adds two at-large members to the governing board of any community college district located in a county with a population of at least three million people, is a special law prohibited by the Arizona Constitution.Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 5/0 decision.
HON. FIELDS et al v ELECTED OFFICIALS RETIREMENT
Case Date: 02/20/2014Case Number: CV-13-0005-T/APQuestion Presented: Whether statutory modification to the public retirement system benefit formula violates the constitution because the changes diminish public retirement system benefits.Decision: The Arizona law violated the Arizona Constitution.Judge Position: Authored the 5/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v CHRISTOPHER AREVALO
Case 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: Joined in the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v BOBBY RAY CARTER JR
Case 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: Authored the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v JOHN MICHAEL ALLEN
Case Date: 04/14/2020Case Number: CR-17-0556-APQuestion 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 RILEY
Case 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; 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 REED
Case 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 JOHNSON
Case 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: Authored the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v ALAN MATTHEW CHAMPAGNE
Case 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 III
Case 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 JOSE ALEJANDRO ACUNA VALENZUELA
Case Date: 09/25/2018Case Number: CR-14-0351-APQuestion Presented: Whether the capital sentencing (first-degree murder) law regarding aggravating circumstances for sentence enhancement is unconstitutional as overly vague, has an insufficient causal relationship between aggravator and crime, and applies to more than only one subclass of defendants. Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional. Judge Position: Authored the 7/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v HON. WEIN/GOODMAN
Case 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: Joined in the 4/3 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v ANDRE LEE JUWAUN MAESTAS
Case 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 ABEL DANIEL HIDALGO
Case Date: 03/15/2017Case Number: CR-15-0049-APQuestion Presented: Whether the Arizona’s death penalty law fails to adequately narrow the class of those eligible for the death penalty and denies equal protection in poorer counties, and is therefore unconstitutional.Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional. Judge Position: Joined in the 5/0 decision.
STATE v DON JACOB HAVATONE
Case Date: 03/09/2017Case Number: CR-15-0387-PRQuestion Presented: Whether a police-directed blood draw without a warrant or consent on an unconscious person suspected of driving under the influence is constitutional.Decision: The blood draw is unconstitutional as applied here, unless police reasonably determine they cannot obtain a warrant without significant delay.Judge Position: Concurred in part and dissented in part with the 3/2 decision.Summary of Dissent or Concurrence: Concurrence in part and dissent in part by J. Pelander joined by J. Brutinel: Given statutory authority and the officers’ reasonable belief that a warrantless search was permitted in reliance on statute, the Court should apply the good faith exception and allow admission of the DUI blood evidence.
JASON DONALD SIMPSON/JOE PAUL MARTINEZ v. HONS. MILLER/STEINLE/STATE
Case Date: 02/09/2017Case Number: CR-16-0227-PRQuestion Presented: Whether prohibiting bail for defendants accused of sexual conduct with a minor under age fifteen, where proof is evident and the presumption great that they committed such crimes, violates the Fourteenth Amendment right of Due Process.Decision: Prohibiting bail for defendants accused of sexual conduct with a minor under age fifteen violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee because the prohibition is not narrowly focused to protect public safety.Judge Position: Joined in the 5/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v JOEL RANDU ESCALANTE-OROZCO
Case Date: 01/12/2017Case Number: CR-13-0088-APQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona’s framework for determining whether a capital defendant has an intellectual disability is constitutional.Decision: Arizona law is constitutional. Judge Position: Joined in the 5/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v VINCENT JOSEPH GUARINO
Case Date: 12/03/2015Case Number: CR-13-0405-APQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona’s capital sentencing (first-degree murder) law on an aggravating circumstances for a crime committed in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.Decision: The Arizona statute is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 5/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v SHAWN PATRICK LYNCH
Case Date: 09/10/2015Case Number: CR-12-0359-APQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona law governing lethal injection is unconstitutional. Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional. Judge Position: Authored the 5/0 decision.
STATE OF ARIZONA v. MICHAEL JONATHON CARLSON
Case Date: 06/18/2015Case Number: CR-12-0464-APQuestion Presented: Whether Arizona law on capital sentencing (first-degree murder) pertaining to aggravating circumstances of prior convictions is unconstitutional under the U.S. and Arizona constitutions. Decision: The Arizona law is constitutional.Judge Position: Joined in the 5/0 decision.