Molski v. Hon. mcgill/state ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                      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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
    GEORGE MOLSKI, Petitioner,
    v.
    THE HONORABLE MICHAEL P. MCGILL, Judge of the SUPERIOR
    COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of
    YAVAPAI, Respondent Judge,
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Real Party in Interest.
    No. 1 CA-SA 21-0096
    FILED 7-13-2021
    Special Action Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
    No. V1300CR202080664
    The Honorable Michael P. McGill, Judge
    REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART; REMANDED.
    COUNSEL
    DM Cantor, Phoenix
    By Joy Riddle and David Cantor
    Counsel for Petitioner
    Sedona City Attorney’s Office, Sedona
    By William A. Kunisch
    Counsel for Real Party in Interest
    MOLSKI v. HON. MCGILL/STATE
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding
    Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.
    M c M U R D I E, Judge:
    ¶1           Petitioner George Molski seeks special action relief from the
    superior court’s order dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We
    grant special action jurisdiction, reverse the superior court’s order, and
    remand for the following reasons.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    ¶2            On October 23, 2019, the Sedona Municipal Court sentenced
    Molski on his conviction for Extreme DUI under A.R.S. § 28-1382(A)(2).
    Molski timely filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment and sentence.
    Before filing an opening memorandum in the appeal, Molski moved the
    municipal court for a trial de novo, asserting that the record was insufficient
    according to Rule 7(g) of the Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure—
    Criminal. He argued the record was inadequate because a significant
    portion of the State’s closing argument was inaudible in the audio
    recording and had not been transcribed. On August 19, 2020, the municipal
    court denied the motion after finding that it could enhance the recordings.
    ¶3             On October 21, 2020, Molski filed his opening memorandum
    in the superior court, raising the insufficient record issue. The superior
    court dismissed the appeal, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because
    Molski failed to appeal from the municipal court’s August 19 order. See
    Ariz. Sup. Ct. R. App. P. Crim. 3(b) (requiring a notice of appeal to identify
    the order, judgment, sentence, or ruling appealed). Molski then petitioned
    this court for special action review.1
    1      Molski requested an extension to file his otherwise untimely reply
    brief. We grant this request and consider the reply brief in this decision.
    2
    MOLSKI v. HON. MCGILL/STATE
    Decision of the Court
    DISCUSSION
    A.     We Accept Special Action Jurisdiction Because Molski Has No
    Right to Appeal from the Superior Court’s Dismissal of His
    Appeal.
    ¶4             We may accept special action jurisdiction when a petitioner
    has no “equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal.” Ariz. R.P.
    Spec. Act. 1(a). Here, Molski has no right to appeal from the superior court’s
    dismissal of his appeal, and so we exercise our discretion and grant review.
    B.     The Superior Court Had Jurisdiction to Review the Sufficiency of
    the Record According to Rule 7(g).
    ¶5            Rule 7(g) provides in part:
    If it appears to the trial court that the record is insufficient for
    an appeal on the record, the trial court may, on its own motion
    or on motion of a party, reset the matter for a new trial within
    45 days from such determination. . . . In cases where it
    appears that the record is insufficient, the preference shall be
    for a new trial at the trial court level. Notwithstanding the
    foregoing, cases . . . determined by the superior court to have an
    insufficient record may be remanded to the original trial court for a
    new trial or hearing in lieu of a trial de novo in the superior court.
    (Emphasis added.) This rule allows the superior court to remand a case for
    trial de novo on its motion if it finds the record insufficient. Because the
    superior court can always consider the sufficiency of the record when acting
    as an appellate body, the court erred by concluding that it was without
    jurisdiction to consider the issue due to Molski’s failure to file a separate
    notice of appeal concerning the August 19 order. We, therefore, reverse the
    superior court’s order dismissing the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, and
    remand the matter to the superior court to determine if the record is
    sufficient. If the superior court concludes that the record is insufficient, it
    may remand the case to the municipal court for a trial de novo. If the court
    determines the record is sufficient, it may proceed at its discretion.
    ¶6             Molski requests that we direct the superior court to conduct a
    trial de novo under Rule 7(g). However, whether the record is sufficient is
    not before us. The only issue correctly before us is whether the superior
    court erred by determining that it lacked jurisdiction to determine if the
    record was sufficient. Molski’s relief is therefore limited to the remand of
    this case to the superior court for its review of the Rule 7(g) issue.
    3
    MOLSKI v. HON. MCGILL/STATE
    Decision of the Court
    CONCLUSION
    ¶7            We accept jurisdiction, reverse the court’s order dismissing
    Molski’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand for review of the
    sufficiency of the record.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-SA 21-0096

Filed Date: 7/13/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/13/2021