STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANDRES SANCHEZ (2024)

DECISION ORDER

Before the Court is a petition for review regarding the trial court's denial of Andres Sanchez's motion for new trial and his subsequent appeal. In affirming Sanchez's conviction and sentence, the majority of the court of appeals panel concluded that a criminal defendant must separately appeal the order denying a motion for new trial from an appeal of the conviction and sentence. The majority reasoned that because § 13-4033(A)(2) separately itemizes “an order denying a motion for a new trial” among the grounds to invoke appellate jurisdiction, a defendant must separately appeal that order for the court to exercise jurisdiction over it.

Both Sanchez and the State of Arizona argue that the court of appeals mistakenly required Sanchez to separately appeal the denial of his motion for new trial. We agree. Section 13-4033(A) authorizes criminal defendants to take appeals from the final judgment of conviction, the sentence imposed, or both. See § 13-4033(A)(1), (4). When, as here, a defendant timely files a notice of appeal from the “judgment of guilt and sentence,” that notice logically endows the court of appeals with jurisdiction to address all pre-judgment rulings or orders necessarily affecting that judgment. Our conclusion aligns with Ariz. R. Crim. 1.2 in that the rules of criminal procedure should be construed to secure simplicity and eliminate unnecessary delay and expenses. Furthermore, following this procedure will permit appeals to be decided on the merits and avoid piecemeal appeals.

Also, a contrary result would needlessly disrupt the criminal appellate process, as the State reports has already occurred. Following the court of appeals’ logic would require criminal defendants to separately appeal a non-final order within twenty days of the trial court's denial. Because the underlying motion for new trial must be filed within ten days of the jury's verdict, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 24.1(b), the twenty-day deadline to appeal will frequently arrive before the sentencing date and therefore before any comprehensive appeal of the defendant's conviction and sentence would be ripe.

As the dissent acknowledged, apart from a rare exception, motions for new trial are, by procedural necessity, litigated and resolved before judgment. When denied, the resulting order is interlocutory and non-final, and it is interwoven with, and indispensable to, the ultimate judgment of conviction. Under that circumstance, an appeal of the judgment of conviction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4033(A)(1) would logically encompass a challenge to a denied motion for new trial.

Therefore, upon consideration by the unanimous Court,

IT IS ORDERED granting review of the petition for review.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the court of appeals’ opinion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this case to the court of appeals to assume jurisdiction over Sanchez's appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial and decide the issues properly raised in that appeal, including how those issues may impact resolution of other issues decided by the court in paragraphs 24 through 31 of the now–vacated opinion.

DATED this 5th day of March, 2024.

Lexis Nexis

ROBERT BRUTINEL Chief Justice