Opinion
No. 2 CA-CV 2017-0043
11-17-2017
THE CITY OF TUCSON, Appellee, v. MILES PARISH, Appellant.
COUNSEL Michael G. Rankin, City Attorney Alan L. Merritt, Deputy City Attorney By Jennifer Bonham, Assistant Prosecuting City Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Stephen M. Weeks, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. C20164715
The Honorable Gus Aragon, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Michael G. Rankin, City Attorney
Alan L. Merritt, Deputy City Attorney
By Jennifer Bonham, Assistant Prosecuting City Attorney, Tucson
Counsel for Appellee
Stephen M. Weeks, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Espinosa concurred.
BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 Appellant Miles Parish ("Parish") appeals from the superior court's order affirming a city court ruling that he violated Tucson City Code § 16-32 (identifying an "unruly gathering" as unlawful and a civil infraction). Although not addressed at the trial court, on appeal in the superior court, Parish challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance. He now appeals the superior court's ruling on the sole issue of whether the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. This court has jurisdiction under Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 9 and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21 and 22-375.
Analysis
¶2 Appellate courts need not address issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Town of Marana v. Pima Cty., 230 Ariz. 142, ¶ 30 (App. 2012). The superior court noted that Parish had not raised the constitutionality argument in the trial court, but nevertheless considered it. A court on appeal under A.R.S. § 22-375, like this court, or a court, like our supreme court, on review, may consider an argument raised for the first time and addressed on appeal below even if the party waived it by not having made it first in the trial court. See Marianne N. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 243 Ariz. 53, ¶ 13 (2017) (statewide significance of the issue bears on decision to address an argument waived below); see City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 209 Ariz. 544, n.9 (2005) (a court will entertain an otherwise waived argument on appeal where good cause exists). But it is not obligated to do so. Despite the superior court's decision to address Parish's constitutional challenge, we decline to do so because it was waived, it is not an issue of statewide importance, and good cause does not otherwise exist.
Disposition
¶3 The only issue raised on appeal having been waived, the rulings below are affirmed.