Wednesday, January 6, 2016 - Oral Arguments
Gonzales (Raul) vs. State
Docket Number: 66615
Faith Lutheran Middle School and High School - 10:00 a.m. - Court of Appeals
Appellant Raul Gonzales appeals the district court’s determination to adjudicate him under the large habitual criminal statute. Gonzales agreed to plead guilty to robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery under a guilty plea agreement, but shortly after being released on bail, and while sentencing was pending, he was allegedly involved in a murder. Thereafter, the State issued a notice of intent to seek punishment as a habitual criminal. Gonzales moved to strike the notice and to withdraw his guilty plea agreement. The district court denied Gonzales’ motions, adjudicated him a habitual criminal, and sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the district court abused its discretion in adjudicating Gonzales a habitual criminal; (2) Whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing evidence of Gonzales’ gang affiliations; (3) Whether the State committed misconduct by threatening a defense witness; and (4) Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Gonzales’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.
State vs. District Court (Bowden)
Docket Number: 69011
Faith Lutheran Middle School and High School - 10:30 a.m. - Court of Appeals
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging an order of the district court granting a motion in limine. Real party in interest Marshan Bowden is charged with conspiracy to commit kidnapping, conspiracy to commit robbery, murder with the use of a deadly weapon, first-degree kidnapping with the use of a deadly weapon, and robbery with the use of a deadly weapon. Bowden moved to exclude a conversation between himself and another individual that was recorded while they were in the back of an Arizona Highway Patrol vehicle as being obtained in violation of Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 13-3005, which prohibits the interception of oral communications. The district court found that A.R.S. § 13-3005 was applicable and granted the motion in limine.
ISSUES:
Whether the district court manifestly abused its discretion by failing to apply controlling authority that requires consideration of the parties’ reasonable expectation of privacy when deciding whether A.R.S. § 13-3005 is applicable.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.