Title: Coleman v. Superior Court in & for County of Pima

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

110 Ariz. 386 (1974) 519 P.2d 851 James W. COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF PIMA and the Honorable Robert B. Buchanan, Judge of the Superior Court, Respondents; The STATE of Arizona, Real Party in Interest. No. 11413. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. March 13, 1974. John M. Neis, Pima County Public Defender, Ed P. Bolding, Former Pima County Public Defender, Robert B. Norgren, Asst. Public Defender, Tucson, for petitioner. *387 Dennis DeConcini, Pima Co. Atty., James M. Howard, Deputy Co. Atty., Tucson, for respondents and real party in interest. LOCKWOOD, Justice: This is a special action brought in this court by James Coleman against the Superior Court of Pima County. The real party in interest is the State of Arizona. The issue before this court is whether the petitioner may be tried as an adult after his release from the Arizona State Hospital where he had been committed by the Juvenile Court until his twenty-first birthday. On September 12, 1968 a petition was filed in juvenile court alleging serious acts of deliquency on the part of the petitioner who was seventeen years and ten months of age at the time. The petition requested the court to adjudge and declare him to be a delinquent child. The petitioner was taken into custody at the detention facilities of the juvenile court center. On November 27, 1968 the juvenile court entered an order specifically suspending criminal prosecution as it was "not necessary for the protection of society". In addition the court found that the petitioner was "mentally defective and disordered within * * * the meaning of A.R.S. § 8-235(B)." Petitioner was committed to the Arizona State Hospital as being "mentally defective, mentally disordered, and mentally ill," and the court expressly continued its jurisdiction over the petitioner until he reached the age of twenty-one years. On April 3, 1969 a petition for rehearing was filed by the Pima County Juvenile Probation Department requesting that the juvenile court vacate its order of November 27, 1968 and to grant a rehearing on the question of transferring the petitioner's case to adult court for criminal prosecution. The juvenile court granted the motion and directed that the rehearing be held on May 16, 1969. Counsel for the petitioner appealed the granting of the motion to the Court of Appeals but was unsuccessful in his attempt to prevent the rehearing from being held. The rehearing was held and the Probation Department moved for an order transferring the petitioner to adult court for prosecution. On January 19, 1970 the court in a minute entry denied the application of the Probation Department and committed the petitioner to the Arizona State Hospital until his twenty-first birthday in accordance with Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S. Ct. 1045, 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1966). All proceedings were had under the Juvenile Code in effect prior to July, 1970. Upon reaching his twenty-first birthday on November 28, 1971, the petitioner was released from the hospital without further consideration by the Juvenile Court. Criminal prosecution by the state was begun against the petitioner when a complaint was filed on March 2, 1972. A preliminary hearing was held and the petitioner was bound over for trial. Petitioner then filed a special action with this court for the purpose of staying all further proceedings and requesting that the trial judge be directed to quash or dismiss the information and all further proceedings. In addition Coleman petitions for a writ of habeas corpus to preclude his state trial as an adult on a charge of homicide. The Arizona Constitution clearly provides that the Superior Court shall have excusive jurisdiction in all matters affecing children accused of crime under the age of eighteen years. Ariz.Const., Art. 6, § 15 (Supp. 1971-1972). According to constitutional provisions, once jurisdiction attaches, the Superior Court may either treat the juvenile as provided by Title 8 (the juvenile court proceedings), or it may refuse to suspend criminal prosecution and treat the offender as an adult. Under the law prior to 1970, as part of the treatment afforded to juveniles the *388 Superior Court acting as the juvenile court could commit the juvenile to an institution pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-235(B) (1956). That statute provided: Such a commitment cannot be considered a final order barring the state from prosecuting the petitioner as an adult at some future time. Any possible doubt as to whether the petitioner could be prosecuted was resolved by the Court of Appeals in Anonymous v. Superior Court, 10 Ariz. App. 243, 457 P.2d 956 (1969). In that opinion the court said: The problem in this case arises from the fact that there has never been a formal adjudication as to whether the petitioner was a delinquent. Nevertheless when the state's petition for a rehearing on the issue of remanding the petitioner to Superior Court to be tried as an adult was denied, a minute entry order dated January 19, 1970 was issued. That order granted the petitioner's own motion that he be returned to the Arizona State Hospital without adjudication as a delinquent or an adjudication hearing. The minute entry goes on to amend the order of November 27, 1968 in the following manner: Thus although the petitioner was never formally adjudicated a delinquent, it is apparent *389 that the petitioner was committed to the State Hospital under the authority of A.R.S. § 8-235(B) which permits the Superior Court to place a child in a suitable public institution. At the time of the recommitment the petitioner was twenty years old. A court should look past the form to the substance of an action especially in view of the informal nature of juvenile proceedings then in effect. The entire philosophy of the juvenile court system would indicate that commitment to the State Hospital is tantamount to a determinaion of the juvenile status of the child. In State v. Shaw, 93 Ariz. 40, 378 P.2d 487 (1963) we held that only when it has been determined that the particular individual is one who will not benefit from special treatment, will that individual be remanded to be tried as an adult. Having decided that the petitioner should be given special treatment, such treatment was made in lieu of criminal prosecution rather than in addition to it. Under the circumstances we conclude that the Superior Court made a de facto determination to treat the petitioner as a juvenile delinquent. Thus the petitioner was not only placed in jeopardy in the juvenile court but was in effect convicted and punished. Any attempt to try him as an adult would not only subject him to the harassment of an additional judicial proceeding but would subject him to the risk of being punished twice for the same offense. Prosecuting the petitioner as an adult would violate both the conception of fundamental fairness which is the basis for juvenile court proceedings and the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Fain v. Duff, 5 Cir., 488 F.2d 218 (1973). Based on the foregoing we grant the petitioner the relief requested. It is therefore ordered that the Honorable Robert B. Buchanan quash the information and all further proceedings against the petitioner. HAYS, C.J., CAMERON, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.