Filed Date: Sept. 5, 2007
Closed Date: June 3, 2008
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a criminal case in which certain constitutional challenges were made as to the operations of the Maricopa County Jail. Due to funding constraints, the Maricopa County Sheriff reallocated personnel and reduced privileged visitation hours at County jail facilities, effective November 14, 2007. The Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, which represented criminal defendants confined in the County jails, sought injunctive relief to restore the previous privileged visitation schedule. The Public Defender argued that the Sheriff's actions impinged upon the criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Judge Anna M. Baca, the presiding criminal court judge for the Maricopa County Superior Court, consolidated motions for injunctive relief in numerous criminal cases (State v. Clarence Dixon, CR2002-019595-001; State v. Dionicio Vargas, CR2006-175092-001; State v. Robert Hernandez CR2007-119475-001 and CR2007-155927-001; State v. Irma Garcia, CR2005-129847-001; State v. Juan Manual Godinez-Morales, CR2007-146854-001; State v. Shawn King, CR2005-014314-001, CR2005-111076, CR2006-012775-001; State v. Miciah Sumpter, CR2006-008209-001, CR2006-134110-001, CR2006-156634-001, CR2007-155510-001, CR2007-143417-001; State v. Casey Romero, CR2007-148305-001; State v. Roberto Vega, CR2006-048861-001; State v. Raymond Musgrove CR2007-148283- 001, CR2003-021314-001; State v. Natalie Rose Herrera Engler, CR2006-166117-001; State v. Ronnie Guilford, CR2006-162702-001; and APD Motion (filed in State v. Ozie Washington, CR2007-156830-001) and conducted an eight-day evidentiary hearing beginning on November 20, 2007.
Following the hearing, Judge Baca concluded that the Sheriff's new schedule for privileged visits violated the in-custody criminal defendants' Six Amendment rights to counsel and access to the courts. The Judge therefore entered an interim order extending the hours of privileged visitation at all jail facilities and further ordered that the parties participate in mediation to permanently resolve the issue. The Sheriff sought relief from the Arizona Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals found that the presiding criminal trial judge had authority to conduct a consolidated hearing to resolve the criminal defendants' constitutional claim that the Sheriff's new privileged visitation schedule denied them access to counsel. The Appeals Court, however, concluded that the trial judge exceeded her authority by granting injunctive, class-action type relief in these criminal cases and that she had no authority to compel the Sheriff to participate in mediation. Arpaio v. Baca, 77 P.3d 312 (Ariz.App. Div. 1 Feb 26, 2008).
On June 3, 2008, review was denied. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Dan Dalton (3/5/2008)
Averyn Lee (6/9/2019)
Baca, Anna M. (Arizona)
Fields, Kenneth L. (Arizona)
Hall, Phillip L. (Arizona)
Gregory, Mary Jane (Arizona)
Briney, Robert (Arizona)
Baca, Anna M. (Arizona)
Fields, Kenneth L. (Arizona)
Hall, Phillip L. (Arizona)
Mroz, Rosa (Arizona)
Mundell, Barbara Rodriguez (Arizona)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 1:35 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Arizona
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 5, 2007
Closing Date: June 3, 2008
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Arizona criminal defendants challenged the Maricopa County Sheriff's new privileged visitation schedule as denying them access to counsel.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Maricopa County Sheriff, County
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Order Duration: 2007 - None
Issues
General:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Affected Sex or Gender:
Type of Facility: