James Morreno v. Hon. brickner/state/montgomery

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA JAMES FELIX MORRENO, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE NICOLE BRICKNER, COMMISSIONER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Respondent Commissioner, STATE OF ARIZONA EX REL. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY, Real Party in Interest. No. CV-17-0193-SA Filed May 2, 2018 Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Nicole Brickner, Commissioner No. CR 2016-107138 No. CR 2016-130854 AFFIRMED Order of the Court of Appeals, Division One No. 1 CA-SA 17-0143 COUNSEL: James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender, Brian Thredgold (argued), Timothy Sparling, Rachel A. Golubovich, Deputy Public Defenders, Phoenix, Attorneys for James Felix Morreno William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney, Amanda M. Parker (argued), Deputy County Attorney, Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona MORRENO V. HON. BRICKNER/STATE Opinion of the Court Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Dominic E. Draye, Solicitor General, Rusty D. Crandell, Assistant Solicitor General, Phoenix, Attorneys for Arizona Attorney General VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, and JUSTICES BRUTINEL, TIMMER, and BOLICK joined. JUSTICE GOULD, joined by JUSTICE LOPEZ, dissented in part and concurred in the result. VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER, opinion of the Court: ¶1 Article 2, section 22(A)(2), of the Arizona Constitution (“the On-Release provision”) precludes bail “[f]or felony offenses committed when the person charged is already admitted to bail on a separate felony charge and where the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge.” We hold that, on its face, the On-Release provision satisfies heightened scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. I. ¶2 James Morreno was indicted for possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, both felonies, in March 2016. After his initial appearance in that case, Morreno was released on his own recognizance. As a condition of his release, Morreno was ordered to “refrain from committing any criminal offense.” ¶3 In May, the police received reports of a suspicious person and contacted Morreno. He admitted possessing marijuana and a marijuana pipe and was again charged with felony possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. His initial appearance in that case was scheduled for July, but Morreno failed to appear and an arrest warrant was issued. ¶4 Morreno was arrested in 2017 and held without bail pursuant to the On-Release provision. Relying on Simpson v. Miller (Simpson II), 241 Ariz. 341 (2017), he moved to modify his release conditions and argued that the On-Release provision was facially invalid because it deprived him of a pre-detention individualized determination of future dangerousness to 2 MORRENO V. HON. BRICKNER/STATE Opinion of the Court which he was constitutionally entitled. The superior court disagreed and denied the motion. ¶5 Morreno filed a petition for special action, which the court of appeals stayed pending this Court’s decision on whether to grant review in a similar case. Thereafter, Morreno filed a petition for review in this Court challenging the superior court’s ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals