Caplanis v. Hon. Anagnost/State

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.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/28/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE CHRIS R. CAPLANIS, ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) HONORABLE GEORGE T. ANAGNOST, Judge ) of the Municipal Court of the City ) of Peoria; STATE OF ARIZONA, Real ) Party in Interest, ) ) Respondents/Appellees. ) 1 CA-CV 09-0519 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. LC2009-000429-001 DT The Honorable Paul J. McMurdie, Judge AFFIRMED Chris R. Caplanis Petitioner/Appellant in propria persona Black Canyon City Office of the City Attorney City of Peoria By Stephen M. Kemp, City Attorney Michael S. Wawro, Assistant City Attorney Attorneys for the City of Peoria Peoria I R V I N E, Judge ¶1 Petitioner/Appellant Chris R. Caplanis appeals the superior court s refusal to accept jurisdiction over his special action. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 On disorderly April 12, conduct in 2009, the Caplanis City of was Peoria convicted Municipal of Court. Caplanis filed a notice of appeal from the conviction on May 4, 2009. That same day, Caplanis filed a financial statement with the city court and requested that the court grant him a waiver of the cost of preparing a transcript of his trial. The city court noted that Caplanis request did not establish a prima facie showing of indigence and denied his request for a waiver of the costs of a transcript. ¶3 On June 18, 2009, Caplanis filed a petition for special action in the superior court. He alleged that because the city court had refused his request for a waiver, and he was unable to afford a certified transcript, he could not seek appellate review of his conviction. Before Respondent/Appellee the Honorable George T. Anagnost, Judge of the City of Peoria Municipal Court, or Real Party in Interest/Appellee State of Arizona filed jurisdiction a over response, Caplanis the special superior action. court Caplanis declined timely appealed. DISCUSSION ¶4 Caplanis alleges the superior court erred in refusing to accept jurisdiction of his special action. When the superior court declines jurisdiction of a non-statutory special action 2 and therefore determine does only not whether reach the the court merits abused of the we discretion its case, in declining jurisdiction. Files v. Bernal, 200 Ariz. 64, 65, ¶ 2, 22 P.3d 57, appropriate 58 2001). 1 (App. when there is Special no action equally jurisdiction plain, is speedy, and abused its adequate remedy by appeal. Ariz.R.P.Spec.Act. 1(a). ¶5 Caplanis contends the superior court discretion because, as an indigent, he is entitled to a waiver of the fee for a certified copy of the criminal trial transcript and without such transcript he cannot properly challenge his conviction on appeal. Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.5 allows a defendant who did not proceed as an indigent in the trial court to do so on appeal if he files in the trial court a request to regarding proceed his as an financial indigent resources. and a sworn questionnaire Ariz.R.Crim.P. 6.4(b) & 31.5(a)(2). The rule states that the court shall require the defendant to appear for an inquiry regarding his ability to pay and shall grant or deny the request within three days. Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.5(a)(2). 1 Although Caplanis sometimes refers to his action as a statutory special action, in his appellate brief, no statute expressly authorizes proceedings under certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition for the issue raised in his petition, and it was therefore a non-statutory special action. Ariz.R.P.Spec.Act. 1(a) & (b); Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 178 Ariz. 102, 103, 870 P.2d 1198, 1199 (App. 1993). 3 ¶6 Caplanis argues that once the trial court denied his request, he had no other remedy and the denial jeopardized his appeal from his conviction because he needs the transcript for that proceeding. Rule 31.5(c) provides a prompt review procedure when a trial court does not allow a defendant to proceed as an indigent. The rule allows a defendant whose petition to proceed as an indigent on appeal has been rejected by the trial court to file a petition to so proceed, supported by a sworn financial questionnaire, in the appellate court. Id. Thus, Caplanis has an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and special action jurisdiction would not be appropriate. Ariz.R.P.Spec.Act. 1(a). The superior court did not abuse its discretion when it declined jurisdiction over Caplanis petition for special action. CONCLUSION ¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. /s/ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 4

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.