From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anonymous v. Superior Court

Court of Appeals of Arizona
Oct 27, 1966
4 Ariz. App. 170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966)

Summary

In Rogers v. Superior Court of Pima County, 4 Ariz. App. 170, 418 P.2d 416 (1966), an attorney failed to appear at a court hearing and was fined $100.

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa

Opinion

2 CA-CIV 271.

September 27, 1966. Rehearing Denied October 27, 1966.

Attorney was held in contempt by the Superior Court of Pima County, Cause No. N-16800, Alice Truman, J., because of failure to appear as counsel at scheduled court hearing, and he sought to appeal. The Court of Appeals held that contempt order was not appealable.

Appeal dismissed.

John William Johnson, Tucson, for appellant.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Philip W. Marquardt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellees.


Appellant Martin S. Rogers is prosecuting this appeal from an order of the superior court, Pima County, Arizona, finding him in contempt of court and ordering that he pay the sum of $100 to the superior court clerk to purge himself of said contempt or a bench warrant would issue for his arrest for failure to so do. Appellant thereupon filed his notice of appeal the same day.

We have often reiterated the principle that an appellate court has a duty, sua sponte, to inquire into its jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, notwithstanding the absence of a challenge to such jurisdiction. Ginn v. Superior Court In and For County of Pima, 1 Ariz. App. 455, 457, 404 P.2d 721 (1965); Christian v. Cotten, 1 Ariz. App. 421, 423, 403 P.2d 825 (1965); Searles v. Haldiman, 3 Ariz. App. 294, 413 P.2d 860 (1966).

Preliminarily, we must point out that the "order" from which this appeal is taken was a minute entry order bearing no signature of a judge. Such order does not comport with the requirements of Rule 58 (a), as amended, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., and is therefore lacking in effectiveness for purposes of appeal. Haechler v. Andrews, 2 Ariz. App. 395, 397, 409 P.2d 315 (1965); State v. Birmingham, 96 Ariz. 109, 112, 392 P.2d 775 (1964).

Apart from this lack of the prerequisite of "form," the subject contempt order is not an appealable order. The lower court based its adjudication of contempt, after affording appellant a full opportunity to be heard, on appellant's failure to appear as counsel at a scheduled court hearing. Such act has recently been classified by the Supreme Court of Arizona as a criminal contempt within the purview of A.R.S. § 12-864, as distinguished from the criminal contempt referred to in A.R.S. §§ 12-861 through 12-863. Ong Hing v. Thurston, 101 Ariz. 92, 416 P.2d 416, 422 (1966). There being no constitutional or statutory authority conferring such right, appellant has no right of appeal. Herzog v. Reinhardt, 2 Ariz. App. 103, 104, 406 P.2d 738 (1965); See also Van Dyke v. Superior Court, 24 Ariz. 508, 543, 211 P. 576 (1922); In re Wright, 36 Ariz. 8, 13, 281 P. 944 (1929); A.R.S. § 12-2101.

Since an appeal does not lie from this contempt order, this court is without jurisdiction to proceed and the appeal is hereby dismissed.


Summaries of

Anonymous v. Superior Court

Court of Appeals of Arizona
Oct 27, 1966
4 Ariz. App. 170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966)

In Rogers v. Superior Court of Pima County, 4 Ariz. App. 170, 418 P.2d 416 (1966), an attorney failed to appear at a court hearing and was fined $100.

Summary of this case from Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa
Case details for

Anonymous v. Superior Court

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANONYMOUS, alleged neglected dependent minor children…

Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona

Date published: Oct 27, 1966

Citations

4 Ariz. App. 170 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966)
418 P.2d 416

Citing Cases

In re Marriage of Chapman

She points to the well-established rule in Arizona that civil contempt adjudications are not appealable. See…

Yaeger v. Vance

Therefore, even if it had been substantively appealable it was not appealable in form. State v. Birmingham,…