Legal Opinion

State v. Holland

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided March 19, 1987No. 1 CA-CR 10177PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant (defendant) challenges the appointment of the city court judge pro tempore who presided over his trial. Our review is necessarily limited to a single issue: the validity of chapter 8, § 5 of the Phoenix City Charter, which authorizes the appointment of Phoenix Municipal Court judges pro tempore. Because that provision is valid, we affirm defendant’s conviction.

Defendant was charged with several traffic violations, including driving while intoxicated. Over his objection, he was tried before a pro tempore judge in Phoenix Municipal Court. Defendant was convicted…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. WolfeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
  2. State v. JacobsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1978
  3. State v. MercurioCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1987
  4. Baca v. DonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
  5. Sanders v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1977

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. MangumCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  2. City of Tucson v. RineerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1998
  3. State v. IrvingCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
  4. State of Arizona v. Walter James MangumCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  5. State v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API