State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Dissent
dissenting.
¶ 40 I respectfully dissent from the conclusion that Whitman timely filed his notice of appeal. Although I would join in the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, I must dissent because I conclude that the pertinent rules are not ambiguous.
¶ 41 The jurisdictional issue is whether the clause “entry of judgment and sentence” is ambiguous when considered in context of the rules of criminal procedure, specifically including Rule 26.16(a), Ariz. R.Crim. P. But the rule’s plain statement that judgment and sentence “are complete and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Larson v. FarleyArizona Supreme Court · 1970
- State Ex Rel. Corbin v. PickrellArizona Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. AguilarArizona Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. DowthardArizona Supreme Court · 1962
- Chronis v. SteinleArizona Supreme Court · 2009
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.