Court Opinion

ID: 9927979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 17:03:44.242201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:28:21.364565
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                      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
                               FILED 1-30-2024

 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
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.”

                                       2
                   WILLIAMS v. HON MYERS/STATE
                         Decision of the Court

¶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.” Contempo-
Tempe 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.

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

                                        3