James v. State

VÁSQUEZ, Judge,

dissenting.

¶36 I agree with the majority regarding Burkhamer’s other jurisdictional arguments, but unlike my colleagues, I believe the trial court could have properly construed Burk-hamer’s “Objection to Defendant’s Final Judgment and Order Dismissing Claim” as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(£), Ariz. R. Civ. P., 16 A.R.S., Pt. 2, thereby extending the time for him to file his notice of appeal.

¶ 37 I, of course, agree that this court is bound by applicable decisions of our supreme court and lacks authority to disregard them. However, I disagree with…