Court Opinion

ID: 9958521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 16:02:55.056411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:27.897214
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                       STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

                                        v.

                 VERONICA IMOGENE JAMES, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0399
                               FILED 4-9-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. S1300CV202300550
              The Honorable John David Napper, Judge

                            APPEAL DISMISSED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Krista Wood
Counsel for Appellee

Musgrove Drutz Kack & Gautreaux, PC, Prescott
By Jeffrey Gautreaux, Joseph C. Butner, IV
Counsel for Appellant
                             STATE v. JAMES
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding
Judge Anni Hill Foster and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1            Veronica James appeals the superior court’s denial of her
petition to restore her civil rights for lack of jurisdiction. Because James’s
petition was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of her
appeal and therefore dismiss.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             In September 2018, Veronica James was convicted in federal
court for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. This
conviction resulted in the loss of her civil rights, including her right to own
firearms. James was imprisoned for one year and then placed on supervised
release for 36 months.

¶3             In July 2023, James petitioned the superior court to restore her
civil rights pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 13-906, -907,
-908, and -910. On July 18, 2023, the superior court denied her petition,
stating that it lacks jurisdiction to restore her rights lost from a federal
offense. On August 11, 2023, 24 days after the judgment was filed, James
appealed.

                               DISCUSSION

¶4              “We have an independent obligation to examine our
jurisdiction over an appeal and lack jurisdiction over an untimely appeal.”
Jurju v. Ile, 255 Ariz. 558, 561 ¶ 10 (App. 2023) (internal citations omitted).
The right to appeal is constrained by statute. State v. Gahary, 252 Ariz. 21, 22
¶ 5 (App. 2021).

¶5            Here, James incorrectly appealed under A.R.S. § 12-
2101(A)(5)(d), which permits a person declared mentally ill to appeal a
denial of a petition to restore one’s right to possess a firearm. Because no
evidence in the record shows that James’s firearm rights were lost as a result
of mental illness, we cannot assume jurisdiction under § 12-2101(A)(5)(d).
Instead, “our courts have largely treated an action for a restoration of rights

                                       2
                             STATE v. JAMES
                            Decision of the Court

after a criminal conviction as a criminal proceeding, implicitly treating
them as orders appealable under A.R.S. § 13-4033(A)(3).” State v. Perry, 245
Ariz. 310, 311 ¶ 3 (App. 2018). Thus, as the equivalent of a criminal
proceeding, Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.2 sets the applicable
deadline for appeal. That Rule requires “notice of appeal from a judgment
or order . . . be filed no later than 20 [calendar] days after entry of the
judgment or order.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.2(a)(2)(B). See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
1.10(a)(3). James’s appeal was four days untimely, and so we lack
jurisdiction to reach its merits. Jurju, 255 Ariz. at 561 ¶ 10.

¶6             The State correctly points out that A.R.S. § 13-908(D)
authorizes the superior court to consider and restore a person’s civil rights
if “lost or suspended as a result of a felony conviction in . . . a United States
district court.” Yet despite this confession of error, we are still precluded
from proceeding as a confession of error is not sufficient to confer
jurisdiction over James’s untimely appeal. See Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v.
Figueroa, 222 Ariz. 588, 596 ¶ 21 (App. 2009) (“Parties cannot, by agreement
or consent, confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court where it would not
otherwise exist.”); Jurju, 255 Ariz. at 561 ¶ 10 (declining jurisdiction over
untimely appeal).

¶7             However, our dismissal of James’s appeal is without
prejudice because the superior court’s “dismissal for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction does not constitute a judgment on the merits.” Magellan Health,
Inc. v. Duncan in & for Cnty. of Maricopa, 252 Ariz. 400, 402 ¶ 1 (App. 2021).
Thus, the superior court’s order cannot have preclusive effect as to James’s
claim for restoration of her civil rights. See e.g., id. at 403 ¶ 9 (stating that
claim preclusion requires, among other things, “a final decision on the
merits”); State v. Whalen, 208 Ariz. 168, 172 ¶¶ 12–13 (App. 2004) (explaining
issue preclusion is used sparingly in criminal cases and requires a valid and
final judgment on the merits).

                               CONCLUSION

¶8            For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss James’s appeal without
prejudice.

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: AA

                                         3