Chatmon v. Hon. Mroz/State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DIVISION ONE FILED: 02-23-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE KOLANY VIDAL CHATMON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE HONORABLE ROSA MROZ, Judge ) of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ) STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the ) County of MARICOPA, ) ) Respondent Judge, ) ) STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) __________________________________) Court of Appeals Division One No. 1 CA-SA 10-0023 Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2009-129069-001 DT Department C DECISION ORDER The Court, Patrick Irvine, Presiding Judge. and Michael J. Brown and Donn Kessler, Judges, participating, has considered Kolany Vidal Chatmon s ( Chatmon ) petition for special action and the State of Arizona s ( State ) Response to Petition for Special Action. For the reasons stated below, we accept jurisdiction of the petition and grant relief. The facts are essentially undisputed. indicted Chatmon for several alleged crimes. A grand jury The deadline for Chatmon to file a motion to dismiss the indictment and remand the matter to the grand jury was on or about June 14, 2009. different judges of the superior court granted Two Chatmon extensions of time to file that motion, the first extension being until August 7, 2009 and the second being until January 29, 2010. Chatmon filed a timely motion to remand to the grand jury and filed a supplement thereto on January 21, 2010. Both the motion and supplement were timely filed given the orders extending the time for such motion. 2010, a third judge of the However, on January 21, superior court denied Chatmon s motion as untimely, apparently not being aware of the second order granting an extension until January 29, 2010. Chatmon contends that the superior court abused its discretion by ruling his motion and supplement were untimely because the motion until supplement. court had January already 29 and extended he timely the time filed for his such motion a and The State agrees that the order denying the motion to remand as untimely was erroneous. We agree that the order denying the motion and supplement is erroneous. Apparently, that order is simply a matter of a failure to communicate to the third judge that the court had already extended the deadline for the motion to remand until January 29, 2010. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED accepting jurisdiction of the petition for special action and vacating that portion of the January 21, 2010 minute entry denying Chatmon s motion to remand to the grand jury as untimely. court for it to This matter is remanded to the superior consider the merits of Chatmon s remand to the grand jury and the supplement thereto. 2 motion to IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the conference previously scheduled for March 2, 2010 on this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the parties or their attorneys of record and to the Honorable Rosa Mroz and Robert L. Gottsfield, Judges. _/S/______________________________ DONN KESSLER, 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.
