ARTHUR T. THOMAS v. DAVID SHINN, STATE OF ARIZONA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO ARTHUR T. THOMAS, Petitioner/Appellant, v. DAVID SHINN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent/Appellee. No. 2 CA-HC 2020-0009 Filed February 5, 2021 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CV202001356 The Honorable Barbara A. Hazel, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Arthur T. Thomas, Florence In Propria Persona THOMAS v. SHINN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Espinosa and Vice Chief Judge Staring concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Judge: ¶1 Arthur Thomas challenges the trial court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶2 Thomas, an inmate with the Arizona Department of Corrections, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in September 2020. He argued he was “illegally confined and restrained of his liberty because” he had been “charged with being ‘[i]n violation of A.R.S. § 13-604.01,’” which he asserted had been “recognized as unconstitutional . . . and repealed in 2008.” Thomas reasoned that “if a statute pursuant to which a defendant is indicted is ‘repugnant to the constitution,’ then the ‘prosecution against him is a nullity.’” The trial court denied the petition, concluding that “no legal basis exists to grant the requested relief.” ¶3 On appeal, Thomas reasserts his claim. He contends that because he had been indicted under § 13-604.01, “the unconstitutional statute rendered the indictment unconstitutional by way of repugnancy, and an indictment which is repugnant to the Constitution could not give the trial court jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.” He also points out that, in its order, the court “did not dispute the fact that . . . § 13-604.01 was recognized as unconstitutional and repealed.” ¶4 Generally, “[i]n Arizona, the writ of habeas corpus may be used only to review matters affecting a court’s jurisdiction.” In re Oppenheimer, 95 Ariz. 292, 297 (1964). Even assuming Thomas is correct that his indictment was flawed, however, a deficient charging instrument does not deprive a court of subject-matter jurisdiction. See State v. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, ¶ 13 (2010). The trial court therefore did not err in concluding Thomas was not entitled to relief. See State v. Cowles, 207 Ariz. 8, ¶ 3 (App. 2004) (appellate court reviews denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus for abuse of discretion). ¶5 Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Thomas’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 2
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.
