NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

ENRIQUE ANTONIO MORENO MEZA, Petitioner,

v.

THE HONORABLE JULIE A. LAFAVE, Commissioner of the SUPERIOR 

COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of 

MARICOPA, Respondent Commissioner,

STATE OF ARIZONA, Real Party in Interest.

No. 1 CA-SA 24-0084 

Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. LC2021-133678-001

Hassayampa Justice Court

No. TR2021-133678-001

The Honorable Julie A. LaFave, Judge Pro Tempore

REVERSED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Kristen Renner, Damon A. Rossi

Counsel for Petitioner

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Johnny Jacquez

Counsel for Real Party in Interest

FILED 07-11-2024
MORENO MEZA v. HON. LAFAVE/STATE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 In this special action, Enrique Antonio Moreno Meza seeks 

relief from the superior court’s decision vacating the justice court’s 

judgment and sentence of his misdeamnor DUI guilty plea and remanding 

for further consideration of the State’s motion to dismiss. For the following 

reasons, we accept special action jurisdiction and grant relief. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On April 21, 2023, Moreno Meza pled guilty to a 

misdemeanor DUI under Arizona Revised Statutes section 28-1381(A)(1), 

(2) in the Hassayampa Justice Court. The court accepted his plea and 

sentenced him. Prior to Moreno Meza pleading guilty, the State moved to 

dismiss the misdemeanor DUI charge without prejudice so it could refile 

the DUI charge as a felony. The justice court denied the motion. The State 

did not seek special action relief from the denial of the motion to dismiss 

prior to the justice court’s acceptance of the guilty plea or prior to 

sentencing. 

¶3 After the justice court accepted Moreno Meza’s guilty plea 

and sentenced him, the State appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss to 

the superior court. The superior court vacated the judgment of the justice 

court and remanded for further consideration of the motion to dismiss.

¶4 Moreno Meza then filed this petition for special action.

SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION

¶5 “Special action jurisdiction is appropriate when a party has 

no equally plain, adequate or speedy remedy by appeal.” Parent v. 

McClennen, 206 Ariz. 473, 475, ¶ 8 (App. 2003). Moreno Meza possesses no 

others means of relief from the superior court’s decision in the appeal from 

the justice court’s judgment. See A.R.S. § 22-375; Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. App. P. 

Crim. 13(b). Accordingly, we accept special action jurisdiction. 
MORENO MEZA v. HON. LAFAVE/STATE

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review a court’s jurisdictional authority de novo. Arturo 

D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 249 Ariz. 20, 23, ¶ 9 (App. 2020). Likewise, 

whether double jeopardy attaches is a question of law we review de novo.

Lemke v. Rayes, 213 Ariz. 232, 236, ¶ 10 (App. 2006).

¶7 Moreno Meza argues the superior court did not have 

jurisdiction to consider the State’s appeal. The State appealed to the 

superior court citing A.R.S. § 13-4032(4), (5), as the sole statutory basis to 

pursue an appeal or alternatively requesting the superior court treat the 

appeal as a special action. The superior court did not grant special action 

review but rather accepted appellate review. That court found jurisdiction 

exists “pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 16; A.R.S. §§ 12-124(A) and 13-

4031; and the Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procure—Criminal.” 

¶8 Under A.R.S. § 13-4032(4) the State may appeal from:

An order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights 

of the state or a victim, except that the state shall only take an 

appeal on an order affecting the substantial rights of a victim

at the victim’s request.

In this case, the State appeals the order denying its motion to dismiss that 

was made prior to the judgment. Therefore, A.R.S. § 13-4032(4) does not 

provide a basis for the State’s appeal. 

¶9 Next, under A.R.S. § 13-4032(5) the State may appeal “[a]

sentence on the grounds that it is illegal, or if the sentence imposed is other 

than the presumptive sentence authorized.” An illegal sentence occurs 

when “the trial judge imposes a sentence that is in violation of statutory 

mandates.” State v. Crawford, 159 Ariz. 339, 341 (App. 1989). A first time 

violation of A.R.S. § 28-1381 imposes a minimum penalty of 10 days in jail

and fines. A.R.S. § 28-1381(I). The justice court considered Moreno Meza’s 

offense a first time violation and imposed ten days in jail (nine days 

suspended upon completion of substance abuse treatment), fines, and 

completion of a substance abuse program. Since there is no presumptive 

sentence for misdemanor convictions, the portion of A.R.S. § 13-4032(5) that 

authorizes appeal by the State from a sentence “other than the presumptive 

sentence” is not applicable in misdemeanor cases. Id. at 340. Moreno Meza 

pled to a misdemeanor DUI, therefore there was no presumptive sentence. 

In this case, the justice court did not impose a sentence that violated 

statutory mandates.
MORENO MEZA v. HON. LAFAVE/STATE

Decision of the Court

4

¶10 Neither A.R.S. § 13-4032(4) nor -4032(5) authorized the State’s 

appeal in this case. The superior court erred when it found jurisdiction to 

consider the State’s appeal. 

¶11 Moreno Meza also argues the superior court precipitated a 

violation of his constitutional protections against double jeopardy by 

remanding the case back to the justice court for further consideration of the 

State’s motion to dismiss. The Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution provides that a person may not be brought into jeopardy more 

than once for the same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V (“No person shall . . . 

be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or 

limb . . .”); Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 (1969) (finding “the double 

jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment represents a fundamental 

ideal in our constitutional heritage, and that it should apply to the States.”). 

Likewise, the Arizona Constitution also protects a person from being twice 

placed in jeopardy for the same offense. Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10; State v. 

Minnitt, 203 Ariz. 431, 437, ¶ 27 (2002).

¶12 In the case of a matter tried to a jury, jeopardy attaches when 

the jury is sworn. Parent, 206 Ariz. at 475, ¶ 9. But, when a defendant pleads 

guilty, jeopardy attaches at the moment the court accepts that plea. Id. This 

basic tenet of law is uncontroverted by the State. Still, the State argues that 

because the superior court vacated the guilty plea, it is as though no plea 

existed and as a consequence jeopardy cannot attach. Not so. The superior 

court may not lawfully vacate a conviction without a proper basis in law.

See generally A.R.S. § 12-124. To vacate the justice court’s acceptance of a 

guilty plea the superior court must first establish that the justice court acted 

outside the scope of its authority in accepting the plea.

¶13 The State agrees that Moreno Meza pled guilty and the justice 

court accepted his plea. Accordingly, jeopardy has attached and Moreno 

Meza may not be prosecuted twice for the same offense. 
MORENO MEZA v. HON. LAFAVE/STATE

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶14 Because the superior court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the 

appeal and jeopardy had attached upon acceptance of the guilty plea, we 

vacate the superior court’s order and reinstate Moreno Meza’s guilty plea, 

conviction, judgment, and sentence in the justice court.