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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TYRONE WILLIAMS, Petitioner,

v.

THE HONORABLE SAM MYERS, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF 

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

Respondent Judge,

STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. Maricopa County Jury Commissioner; 

Maricopa County Jury Manager, Real Parties in Interest.

No. 1 CA-SA 23-0228 

Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

CR2022-121288-001

The Honorable Sam J. Myers, Judge

SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION DECLINED

COUNSEL

Comeback Law, P.C., Phoenix

By Dave Erlichman

Counsel for Petitioner

FILED 1-30-2024
2

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Robert A. Walsh

Counsel for Real Party in Interest

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Nancy M. Bonnell

Counsel for Real Party in Interest

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Tyrone Williams faces second-degree murder 

charges in Maricopa County Superior Court. His trial has not been held,

and from the record presented, no firm trial date has been scheduled.

¶2 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion 

to dismiss the criminal case, claiming Maricopa County’s jury system 

violates the requirement that the racial makeup of potential jurors represent 

“a fair cross section of the community.” Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 359

(1979).

¶3 To support his Duren violation claim, Petitioner filed a motion 

for discovery in the criminal case. Without citing any procedural authority, 

the motion sought a court order authorizing discovery from non-party 

county officials, apparently the Maricopa County Jury Commissioner and 

Recorder. 

¶4 The Maricopa County Jury Commissioner and Manager 

opposed the motion, arguing that it failed to comply with Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 15.1(g), which in appropriate circumstances authorizes 

a court to order “any person to make” disclosure to the defendant. Among 

other things, the opposition argued that the Petitioner “does not even allege 

he tried to obtain the information by other means,” such as a public records 

request or by filing a separate civil action. Petitioner’s reply argued that the 

motion for discovery “extends beyond . . . the Rules of Criminal Procedure” 

and that his “is directed to the inherent authority and obligation of the 

Court.” 
WILLIAMS v. HON MYERS/STATE

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 After full briefing, the superior court denied Petitioner’s 

motion for discovery. On that same day, the superior court denied

Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion to dismiss. This 

special action petition challenges the denial of Petitioner’s motion for 

discovery. 

¶6 Accepting special action jurisdiction “is highly discretionary 

in this court.” Harris Tr. Bank of Ariz. v. Superior Court, 188 Ariz. 159, 162 

(App. 1996). In the exercise of that discretion, the court declines special 

action jurisdiction here. 

¶7 The relief Petitioner seeks is now moot, given that the petition 

for writ of mandamus and motion to dismiss was denied (a fact not 

disclosed in the special action petition or appendix filed by Petitioner). 

“Appellate courts do not give opinions on moot questions.” ContempoTempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, 144 Ariz. 227, 229 (App. 1985)

(citation omitted). Nor is there any indication that Petitioner tried to obtain 

the information sought through alternative means, such as a public records 

request or in a separate civil action. Cf. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.1(g)(1)(B) 

(requiring, to obtain disclosure from a non-party, that “the defendant 

cannot obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue 

hardship”).

¶8 For these reasons, this court declines special action 

jurisdiction and vacates the order setting dates previously issued in this 

special action proceeding.