State v. Murphy

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

eNOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) KRISTINE M. MURPHY, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. _______________________________________ ) STATE OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE FILED: 02-09-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN 1 CA-CV 09-0208 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication - Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. LC 2008-000750-001 DT The Honorable Joseph C. Kreamer, Judge AFFIRMED Andrew P. By and Attorneys Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney Phoenix Elizabeth Burton Ortiz, Former Appeals Bureau Chief Jeffrey W. Trudgian, Appeals Bureau Chief for Plaintiff/Appellee Daniel W. Evans Attorney for Defendant/Appellant Gilbert N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 This appeal arises out of an order entered by the superior court declining to accept special action jurisdiction from an order entered by the justice court denying a motion to suppress the results of a breath test filed by defendant/appellant Kristine M. Murphy. The superior court refused to accept special action jurisdiction because Murphy s challenges to the breath test could be raised, assuming her conviction, on appeal. See ( A.R.S. ) § 22-371(A) (2002). generally Ariz. Rev. Stat. In so ruling, the superior court did not consider the merits of Murphy s challenges to the breath test. ¶2 When a party appeals from a special action initiated in the superior court, we conduct a bifurcated review. v. Thorneycroft, 1979). We 125 must Ariz. first 88, 92, determine 607 whether P.2d the 965, Bilagody 969 (App. superior court exercised its discretion to assume jurisdiction over the merits of the claim. Id. Id. If so, we may consider the claim s merits. If not -- which is the case here -- the sole issue for our review is whether the superior court abused its discretion in declining to accept jurisdiction. ¶3 Id. Acceptance of special action jurisdiction is highly discretionary. Pompa v. Superior Court, 187 Ariz. 531, 533, 931 P.2d 431, 433 (App. 1997). Jurisdiction is generally accepted only in those cases in which justice cannot be satisfactorily obtained by other means. Id. (quoting King Court, 138 Ariz. 147, 149, 673 P.2d 787, 789 (1983)). 2 v. Superior ¶4 In this case, the superior court correctly recognized special action relief should be reserved for situations in which there is no other equally plain, speedy, or adequate remedy. The superior court also correctly noted a remedy does not become inadequate merely because more time would transpire by pursuing the issue through an appeal. 177, 685 P.2d 1323, 1329 Neary v. Frantz, 141 Ariz. 171, (App. 1984). Because Murphy may challenge the justice court s denial of her motion to suppress, assuming a conviction, on appeal, we cannot say the superior court abused its discretion in declining to accept special action jurisdiction. ¶5 We therefore affirm the order of the superior court declining to accept special action jurisdiction. We express no opinion on the merits of Murphy s challenge to the breath test results. /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge /s/ ____________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.