arizona court of appeals, division 2
no. 2 CACR 20100114PR, 45. 14 According to the state, the original superior court order requiring Espinoza to register as a condition of his probation, as well as the two convictions for registration violations that followed, all fell within the court's subject matter jurisdiction and therefore were not void ab initio, but voidable orders that could have been modified only on appeal or by proper and timely post-judgment motion. State v. Bryant, 219 Ariz. 514, 15, 200 P.3d 1011, 1015 (App.2008); see also State v. Cramer, 192 Ariz. 150, 16, 962 P.2d 224, 227 (App.1998) (A judgment that is voidable is binding and enforceable until it is reversed or vacated.). Because no hearing was held in this case, we draw our facts from the uncontested material appended to Navarro's suppression motion as well as the evidence presented at trial. WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). State v. Espinoza, No. See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. In the context of challenges to criminal judgments that have become final, our state has adopted a modern approach, in conformity with the Restatement, which resists the temptation to characterize even serious procedural irregularities as violations of jurisdictional court authority. The appeals process is generally the same for both civil and criminal cases. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. All rights reserved. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. A clerk of the court maintains official records and case files and handles the administrative duties of the court. Although 133821 is silent on the question of whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the 2004 order, the legislature has not been similarly mute on the nature of a superior court's subject matter jurisdiction over matters of juvenile delinquency. The court of appeals: hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has Our highest court concluded in Bergmuch like the Supreme Court did in Birchfield, ___ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2184 that requiring a DUI arrestee to exhale into a testing device is a slight inconvenience that represents a burden which such defendant must bear for the common interest. Berg, 76 Ariz. at 103, 259 P.2d at 266; accord Campbell v. Superior Court, 106 Ariz. 542, 547, 479 P.2d 685, 690 (1971). 9 Although the trial court's determination that Espinoza had failed to comply with Rule 32.2(b) provided a sufficient basis to deny relief, we also rejected Espinoza's argument that the 2004 criminal damage probation order was void ab initio.