Wilson v. Yarnell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: 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 DALE WILSON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. YARNELL JUSTICE COURT and WILLIAM KUNISCH, Defendants/Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 11-09-2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CV 09-0783 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Cause No. P1300CV200901691 The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge AFFIRMED Dale T. Wilson Plaintiff/Appellant, In Propria Persona Kirkland Sheila Polk, Yavapai County Attorney By William A. Kunisch, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Defendants/Appellees Prescott N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 This appeal arises out of a superior court order declining to accept special action jurisdiction over a justice court order challenge to denying the defendant/appellant justice court s subject Dale matter T. Wilson s jurisdiction over his superior because prosecution court the for refused various misdemeanor offenses. accept special action court justice to acted within its denying Wilson s challenge. The jurisdiction discretion in We agree with the superior court and hold it did not abuse its discretion in declining special action jurisdiction. ¶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 -- as is the case here -- the sole issue for our review is whether the superior court abused its discretion in declining to accept jurisdiction. 1 ¶3 Acceptance of special action jurisdiction is highly discretionary. 931 Id. P.2d accepted 431, only Pompa v. Superior Court, 187 Ariz. 531, 533, 433 in (App. those 1997). cases Jurisdiction in which satisfactorily obtained by other means. is justice generally cannot be Id. (quoting King v. Superior Court, 138 Ariz. 147, 149, 673 P.2d 787, 789 (1983)). 1 In his briefing, Wilson raises myriad other issues related to the proceedings in the justice court. Those issues, however, are not properly before us on appeal. If convicted, Wilson may appeal to the superior court in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes section 22-261 (2002). 2 ¶4 In this case, the superior court correctly recognized the highly discretionary nature of special action relief and chose to deny special action jurisdiction. Additionally, the superior court correctly recognized justice courts have subject matter jurisdiction over misdemeanor and criminal offenses with penalties up to $2500 in fines and six months in jail. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ( A.R.S. ) § 22-301 (Supp. 2009); Rogers v. Cota, 223 Ariz. 44, 46, ¶ 5, 219 P.3d 254, 256 (App. 2009). Further, Wilson s challenge to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised on appeal to the superior court if he is convicted. See generally A.R.S. § 22-371(A) (2002). ¶5 Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in declining to accept special action jurisdiction, we affirm the order of the superior court. /s/ __________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ______________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge /s/ ______________________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, 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.