Nikont v. Hantman

2 Citing cases

  1. Nordstrom v. Leonardo

    214 Ariz. 545 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 2 times

    In his petition for special action in this court, Nordstrom argues, inter alia, the respondent judge erred in ruling on Nordstrom's motion for change of judge for cause because the respondent judge himself previously had been peremptorily removed from the underlying case pursuant to Rule 10.2, Ariz. R.Crim. P., 16A A.R.S. ¶ 2 "Because the [respondent judge's] ruling denying the request for a change of judge is not an appealable order, see A.R.S. § 12-2101, [Nordstrom] necessarily does not have `an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal.'" Nikont v. Hantman, 211 Ariz. 367, ¶ 2, 121 P.3d 873, 874 (App. 2005), quoting Ariz. R.P. Spec. Actions 1(a), 17B A.R.S.; see also Bolding v. Hantman, 214 Ariz. 96, ¶ 1, 148 P.3d 1169, 1170 (App. 2006); Medders v. Conlogue, 208 Ariz. 75, ¶ 1, 90 P.3d 1241, 1242 (App. 2004). And, because the issue presented is strictly one of law and potentially of statewide importance that may recur, we accept jurisdiction of the special action.

  2. State v. Celaya

    213 Ariz. 282 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 9 times
    In State v. Celaya, 213 Ariz. 282, 282-83 ¶¶ 1-2, 7, 141 P.3d 762, 762-63 (App. 2006), and State v. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 208 Ariz. 198, 199 ¶ 1, 92 P.3d 424, 425 (App. 2004), the intervening event was invalidation of the original sentence.

    Cf. Rodriguez-Gonzales, 208 Ariz. 198, ¶ 7, 92 P.3d at 426 (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction non-Blakely-based direct appeals of defendants' resentencings ordered in proceeding for post-conviction relief); Nikont v. Hantman, 211 Ariz. 367, ¶ 6, 121 P.3d 873, 875 (App. 2003) (Rule 10.4(b), Ariz. R.Crim. P., 16A A.R.S., which renews right to change of judge on remand for "new trial," does not renew right to change of judge on remand for resentencing based on Blakely). Concurring: JOHN PELANDER, Chief Judge and JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Presiding Judge.