Opinion
2 CA-CR 2011-00082 CA-CR 2011-0011
01-11-2012
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, v. DARELL SCORPIO SMITH, DARRIN NOLAN SMITH, Appellees.
Daisy Flores, Gila County Attorney By Joy Riddle Globe Attorneys for Appellant Emily Danies Tucson Attorney for Appellees
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND
MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
(Consolidated)
DEPARTMENT A
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GILA COUNTY
Cause Nos. CR201000268 and CR201000267
Honorable Robert Duber II, Judge
DISMISSED
Daisy Flores, Gila County Attorney
By Joy Riddle
Globe
Attorneys for Appellant
Emily Danies
Tucson
Attorney for Appellees
HOWARD, Chief Judge.
¶1 The state appeals from the trial court's orders granting Darell Smith and Darrin Smith's motions to suppress evidence found as a result of a warrantless stop and search of a car. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 We need not reach any underlying factual issues here. Darell and Darrin were each indicted for possession of phencyclidine (PCP) for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. After a hearing, the trial court denied the defendants' motions to suppress. However, after a hearing on motions to reconsider, the court granted the motions to suppress the evidence. The minute entries for that hearing were both filed on November 1, 2010. The state appealed from the orders granting the motions to suppress in notices filed on November 30 and December 1. After a motion by Darell, this court ordered the cases consolidated on appeal.
Discussion
¶3 The state asserts we have jurisdiction over the appeal under A.R.S. § 13-4032(6). However, we must independently determine whether we have jurisdiction. State v. Limon, 624 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 17, ¶ 3 (Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2011). Because our jurisdiction is statutorily prescribed, "we have no authority to entertain an appeal over which we do not have jurisdiction." Id.
¶4 Section 13-4032(6) permits the state to appeal from "[a]n order granting a motion to suppress the use of evidence." Rule 31.3, Ariz. R. Crim. P., requires a notice of appeal to be filed "within 20 days after the entry of judgment and sentence." Thus, when the state appeals from the grant of a motion to suppress, it must file its notice of appeal within twenty days of the court's entry of the order. Limon, 624 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 17, ¶¶ 8-9. Here, the state filed its notices of appeal twenty-nine and thirty days after the court's order granting the motion to suppress evidence. In its notices of appeal, the state acknowledged that it appealed from the court's October 29 rulings, which were filed on November 1. Because the state's appeals were untimely, we do not have jurisdiction over the appeal.
Conclusion
¶5 For the foregoing reasons, the state's notices of appeal were untimely. Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss it.
_______________
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
CONCURRING:
_______________
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge
_______________
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge