Court Opinion

ID: 9549404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:17:51.840775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:15.545322
License: Public Domain

GREER, Judge,
dissenting:
I agree with that part of the majority’s opinion finding that the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction. However, because there was, and still is, an equally plain, speedy, and adequate alternative remedy available to petitioner, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to exercise our special action jurisdiction.
As a court of limited jurisdiction, we can only consider matters specifically conferred upon us by statute. Campbell v. Arnold, *344121 Ariz. 370, 590 P.2d 909 (1979); Baca v. Don, 130 Ariz. 222, 635 P.2d 510 (App.1981). Accordingly, before reaching the merits of the instant petition, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction. The term “jurisdiction” has dual significance in special action proceedings. See Vol. 1, St. Bar of Ariz., Ariz.App. Handbook, sec. 7.3 (1978). First, we must decide whether we have traditional subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition. If so, we then determine whether we may properly exercise that jurisdiction. Id. Only after answering both inquiries in the affirmative may we reach the merits of the petition.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

It must be remembered that the court of appeals’ jurisdiction over special actions is much more limited than that of our supreme court. See Baca v. Don, supra. Our subject matter jurisdiction over such proceedings is statutory in origin. A.R.S. § 12-120.21 A(3) provides:
A. The court of appeals shall have:
3. Jurisdiction to issue injunctions, writs of mandamus, review, prohibition, certiorari and other writs necessary and proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Rule 1(a), 17A A.R.S., Special Actions, Rules of Procedure, modifies the statute by delimiting the scope of special actions to that available under the traditional writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.
The instant petition seeks relief traditionally granted by writ of certiorari. The original jurisdictional scope of the old writ extended only to those cases which were not appealable, regardless of the adequacy of the appellate remedy. Miller v. Superior Court, 88 Ariz. 349, 356 P.2d 699 (1960); Miller v. Superior Court, 21 Ariz. 61, 185 P. 357 (1919); Territory v. Doan, 7 Ariz. 89, 60 P. 893 (1900).
In Forman v. Creighton School District No. 14, 87 Ariz. 329, 351 P.2d 165 (1960), our supreme court recognized the harsh effect of the old rule and granted a writ of certiorari because the remedy by appeal was “inadequate.” And, in Genda v. Superior Court, 103 Ariz. 240, 439 P.2d 811 (1968), the court formally recognized that the old rule had been “relaxed.” See also Johnson v. Collins, 11 Ariz.App. 327, 464 P.2d 647 (1970).
In light of the language of A.R.S. § 12-120.21A(3), to wit: “[W]rits necessary and proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction”, and perhaps due to the harsh results of the old rule, this court has held that it has subject matter jurisdiction over special actions when it has potential appellate jurisdiction over the subject matter under consideration by the lower court. See, e.g., Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County, 10 Ariz.App. 601, 461 P.2d 170 (1969). Our appellate jurisdiction pertains to actions and proceedings originating in or permitted by law to be appealed from the superior court, except criminal actions involving crimes for which a sentence of death or life imprisonment has been imposed. Baca v. Don, supra. A final order of the juvenile court may be appealed to the court of appeals. 17A A.R.S. Juv.Ct. Rules of Proc., rule 24(a). Thus, this court had appellate jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant case. Therefore, under Morrison, we also have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this special action petition.

Propriety of Exercising Jurisdiction

Turning to the second inquiry, it has long been the rule of law in Arizona that jurisdiction to entertain an extraordinary writ will not be exercised when there is an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal. See, e.g, Dean v. Superior Court, 84 Ariz. 104, 324 P.2d 764 (1958); Rosenberg v. Arizona Board of Regents, 118 Ariz. 489, 578 P.2d 168 (1978). This rule was codified in mandatory terms by rule 1(a) of the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions. And, as pointed out by the State Bar Committee notes to rule 1, “[t]he principles as to what is ‘an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal’ are wholly unchanged by this rule.” See also rule 1(a), Arizona Rules of Procedure for *345Special Actions; Bilagody v. Thorneycroft, 125 Ariz. 88, 607 P.2d 965 (App.1979).
What constitutes a “plain, speedy and adequate remedy” is a question which has received much consideration by the courts, “and is so much dependent upon the facts of particular cases, that the formulation of a general rule is not practicable even if possible.” 1 W.F. Bailey, Bailey on. Habeas Corpus 647, § 165 (1913). However, it is clear that the burden is upon the petitioning party to show that an available appeal is not plain, speedy and adequate. In considering this issue, the Supreme Court of Idaho has held that, “[a] right of appeal is regarded as a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law in the absence of a showing of exceptional circumstances or of the inadequacy of an appeal to protect existing rights.” Smith v. Young, 71 Idaho 31, 225 P.2d 466, 468 (Idaho 1950).
The instant action was necessitated by petitioner’s failure to timely perfect his rights to an appeal. However, the fact remains that an appeal was available. There has been no showing that such appeal would have been inadequate. In fact, petitioner’s filing of an appeal, albeit untimely, indicates his belief that it was an adequate remedy. To exercise jurisdiction at this point would permit petitioner an unwarranted second bite at the apple, and thus abrogate our rules of appellate procedure.
That a writ of certiorari was not to be used as a substitute for an appeal was recognized long ago in Territory v. Doan:
It would not be permitted to take the place of an appeal or writ of error, even to correct judgments or other proceedings of a court in excess of jurisdiction. Our statute is framed with this idea of the province of the writ, and provides that it may issue when there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
7 Ariz. at 93, 60 P. at 894.„
The issue was similarly resolved in the more recent case of Rosenberg v. Arizona Board of Regents:
[Fjacts must appear from an examination of appellant’s third count which would indicate that she did not have an adequate remedy at law. Since appellant had an appeal under the administrative review act, it cannot be said she did not have an adequate remedy at law.
118 Ariz. at 493, 578 P.2d at 172. Accord, Hurst v. Bisbee Unified School District No. 2, 125 Ariz. 72, 607 P.2d 391 (App.1980). Our ability to provide a speedy remedy by way of special action will be greatly compromised if we permit that procedure to be used as a substitute for appeal. Moreover, as the majority recognizes, adequate relief remains available to petitioner pursuant to rule -60(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
Although cognizant of the fact that minor children are involved in this matter, I am not persuaded by the majority’s contention that the available alternative remedies would create undue delay and result in detriment to the children. Our supreme court has also spoken on this issue:
Of course, there is expense and delay in being put to a trial and then an appeal. But these facts alone will not justify issuing the writ.
Caruso v. Superior Court, 100 Ariz. 167, 171, 412 P.2d 463, 466 (1966). Accord, Armstrong v. City Court of Scottsdale, 118 Ariz. 593, 578 P.2d 1022 (App.1978).
The long delays currently experienced in our appellate system cause some degree of harm to most litigants, sometimes more so to those appealing from our juvenile courts. The solution is not, however, to be found by enlarging the scope of our special action petition as the majority would do. And, until our supreme court rules differently, I feel it would be an abuse of our discretion to exercise jurisdiction in matters such as the one at bar.
For the foregoing reasons, I would decline to exercise jurisdiction in this matter.