I. This Matter Presents a Purely Legal Issue of Statewide Importance Appropriately Addressed by Special Action. ¶8 Whether to accept jurisdiction of a special action is "highly discretionary," but is "appropriate ‘in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.’ " Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77 ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020) (quoting State ex rel. Romley v. Martin , 203 Ariz. 46, 47 ¶ 4, 49 P.3d 1142, 1143 (App. 2002) ). How to interpret the specificity requirement in A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) is a purely legal question of statewide importance that commonly recurs.
¶7 Though "highly discretionary," special action jurisdiction may be appropriate when a party has no "equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal." Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77 ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020) (quoting Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a) ). "Jurisdiction is also appropriate ‘in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.’ " Id. (quoting State ex rel. Romley v. Martin , 203 Ariz. 46, 47 ¶ 4, 49 P.3d 1142, 1143 (App. 2002) ).
¶13 Our decision to accept special action jurisdiction in a particular case is highly discretionary. Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77, ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020). We accepted jurisdiction here because the State had no adequate remedy by appeal and because interpretation of Johnson ’s requirement that the State obtain judicial approval before refiling charges previously dismissed on grounds of incompetency is a matter of statewide importance.
Special action jurisdiction is appropriate "in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again." Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77 ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020). ¶10 Former Counsel claims the superior court erred in refusing to compel Father to produce an unredacted copy of Replacement Counsel's file.
¶6 "Special action jurisdiction is highly discretionary but may be appropriate when no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal exists." E.H. v. Slayton , 251 Ariz. 289, 291, ¶ 7, 491 P.3d 396, 398 (App. 2021) (quoting Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77, ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020) ); Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 8(a). Acceptance of such jurisdiction is appropriate where a petitioner has no effective appellate remedy.
This standard extends to every essential element of the offenses charged. See Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, ¶ 21, 466 P.3d 386 (App. 2020). In evaluating the sufficiency of the state's evidence, we may not "reweigh evidence or reassess the witnesses’ credibility."
Jurisdiction is also appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again." Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77, ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020) (quotations omitted). ¶8 As a crime victim, E.H. has standing to seek special action relief from the superior court's denial of her restitution claim.
Jurisdiction is also appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again." Prosise v. Kottke , 249 Ariz. 75, 77, ¶ 10, 466 P.3d 386, 388 (App. 2020) (quotations omitted). ¶8 This court generally will decline special action jurisdiction over discovery disputes.
The record has "evidence that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." Prosise v. Kottke, 249 Ariz. 75, 79, ¶ 21 (App. 2020) (citation omitted). Two bouncers testified.
SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ¶9 Though "highly discretionary," special action jurisdiction may be appropriate when no "equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal exists." Prosise v. Kottke, 249 Ariz. 75, 77 ¶ 10 (App. 2020) (cleaned up).