Court Opinion

ID: 9557784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:57:28.448118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:50.187353
License: Public Domain

HAYS,
specially concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion, but I am compelled to comment on the fact that in my view the court should never have accepted jurisdiction of this special action. Apparently, the majority is prepared to grant instant review to the hundreds of motions to suppress which are filed in criminal cases in the trial courts. 17A A.R.S. Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, rule 1, in part says:
“Except as authorized by statute, the special action shall not be available where there is an equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal; and nothing in these rules shall be construed as enlarging the scope of the relief traditionally granted under the writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.”
The majority does not even address the question of why we took jurisdiction in this matter. Could it be because there is nothing different in this case from the many cases in which we have declined to accept jurisdiction?
I concur specially.
GORDON, J., concurs.