1Roy Warden, Petitioner

21015 W. Prince Road

3#131-182
4Tucson Arizona 85705
5(520) 300-4596
6roywarden@cox.net
7
8 IN THE SUPREME COURT
9 OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
10
11

) Arizona Supreme Court

ROY WARDEN, )
) No. CV-09-0387 PR
Petitioner, )
)
) Court of Appeals
v. ) Division 2
) No. 2CA-SA2009-0076
)
HON. EUGENE HAYS, Judge of the )
Tucson City Court; HON. MITCHELL )) Pima County Superior Court
EISENBERG, Judge of the Tucson City ) No. CR 20083441
Court, and the ARIZONA COURT OF )
) Tucson City Court
APPEALS, DIVISION 2 )
) No. CR 7030208
Respondents, )
)
) REPLY TO STATE’S RESPONSE
and ) TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
)
)
STATE OF ARIZONA, )
)
)
Real Party in Interest. )
12
13
14Supreme Court must consider new constitutional issues unless they
15were expressly waived…(Arizona cases)
16
17 .I ARGUMENT

18

1 1
 1

2 .1 However; in Exhibit 4, the State’s Response to the Petition for

3 Review submits an Appellate Memorandum from an entirely different

4 case, thus confusing the issue before this court.

5 .2 Moreover; regarding Petitioner’s Special Action to the Arizona

6 Appellate Court, the State mis-cites the law and altogether ignores the

7 provisions of A.R.S. 22-375 which effectively end all rights of direct

8 appeal in Superior Court for those who are convicted in courts of

9 lesser jurisdiction unless the constitutionality of a statute as written is

10 challenged.

11 .3 And finally; the State completely ignores the law as set forth in ( )

12 which requires this court to hear cases presenting “serious

13 constitutional issues” even if those issues were not directly addressed

14 in the lower courts, unless those issues were expressly waived.

15 .II CONCLUSION
16
17
18 .III PRAYER
19
20
21
22

23

24

1 2
 1

5 .IV THE STATE HAS SUBMITS A DOCUMENT FROM

6 AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CASE
7

8 1. On page 4, line 2 of the State’s Response, the State references Exhibit

9 4, which is represented to be Petitioners Appellant Memorandum to

10 the Pima County Superior Court.

11 2. However; State’s Exhibit 4, is actually an Appellant Memorandum

12 Petitioner submitted in an entirely different case, (CR 7055909).

13 3. Petitioner submits: State’s exhibit is intended to confuse the court and

14 obfuscate the singular issue now before this court which is: did the

15 appellate court abuse it’s discretion in denying jurisdiction to hear

16 Petitioner’s case contrary to the law as set forth in Dombey v Phoenix

17 Newspapers, Inc., 150 Ariz. 476 (1986), Dream Palace v County of

18 Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2004) and Citizen Publishing Co. v

19 Miller, 210 Ariz. 513 (2005) which require Arizona appellate courts

20 to accept jurisdiction in special actions raising “serious constitutional

21 concerns.”

1 3
 1 .V THE STATE MIS-CITES THE LAW AS PER A.R.S 22-
2 375: PETITIONER’S RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM
3 CONVICTION IN A COURT OF LESSER
4 JURISDICTION ENDED IN SUPERIOR COURT
5
6
7
8
9 .VI ( ) REQUIRES THE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR
10 SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES EVEN IF THEY
11 WERE NOT PRESENTED TO THE LOWER
12 APPELLATE COURT
13
14
15

1 4