1

Jeffrey P Grynkewich
2 State Bar Number 031153
GRYNKEWICH LAW OFFICES
3 1 S Church Ave, Suite 1200
Tucson, Arizona 85701
4 Phone: (520)448-5080
Fax: (520)448-5101
5 Email: jeff@grynklaw.com
Attorney for Petitioner
6

7 IN THE PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

8 FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA

9 MELANIE RENEE CAMPBELL, Case No.:

10 Petitioner,

11 vs. Re: Pima Justice Cause No.: CR21-000885-MI

12 HON. ADAM WATTERS, IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
13 FOR PIMA COUNTY AND PRO TEM JUSTICE OF PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION
THE PEACE FOR PRECINCT 6 OF THE PIMA
14 COUNTY JUSTICE COURT,

15 Respondent

16 STATE OF ARIZONA,

17 REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

18
Petitioner Melanie Campbell hereby petitions this Court to take Special Action
19
Jurisdiction against the Respondent Judge for abusing his discretion in failing to waive
20

21 the arraignment in this matter and requiring Petitioner’s presence. This petition is

22 supported by the following Statement of Facts, Question Presented, Statement of

23
Jurisdiction, Argument of Law, and attached exhibits.
24
STATEMENT OF FACTS
25

26 On January 26, 2021 Defendant was charged and arrested with one count of
27
Criminal Damage and one count of Disorderly Conduct as Domestic Violence offenses
28
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION - 1
 1 (Exhibit 1). She was seen by a judge the next day and released on her own recognizance
2
with an arraignment scheduled for February 24, 2021. (Exhibit 2). Counsel was retained,
3
and entered a Notice of Appearance and Plea of Not Guilty, and Request for Case
4

5 Management Conference. (Exhibit 3). The accompanying motions were denied stating
6
that “all defendants must appear for arraignment” and “no waiver of DV arraignment Δ
7
must appear”. (Exhibit 4). Petitioner never consented to her matter being placed into DV
8

9 court, but this was done procedurally. Further, the Pima County Justice Court DV court,
10 is a case processing and procedural court, not a therapeutic specialty court, like a
11
diversionary or probation mandated drug, veteran, or mental health court. Certain
12

13
Domestic Violence cases are assigned directly to this court when filed within one of the

14 respective precincts consisting of the Pima County Consolidated Justice Court system.
15
This requires elected justices from respective precincts to assign DV cases filed in their
16
precincts to a delegated justice of the peace serving in a pro-tem capacity for the precinct
17

18 from whence the charges originated.1

19
Previously the issue relating to this matter had been placed into controversy with a
20
special action filed in this court in State of Arizona vs. Bruce Dynge, Pima Superior
21

22 Court Case No. C20210118. However, in that matter, the State dismissed the underlying

23 action, and the matter became moot requiring dismissal2. (Exhibit 5)

24 1

25 And surprisingly also gives the State the power to delegate cases to a specific judge other than the one elected in the
precinct based on DV allegations.
26 2

27 A separate party had also attempted to join the action to prevent the matter from becoming moot, but his cause was
more related to the respondent judge not following the local ruled regarding Defendants’ presence at court
28 proceedings, rather than arraignment procedure.
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION - 2
 1 After consulting the rules approved by the Arizona Supreme Court regarding
2
Local Procedure for the Pima County Justice Courts, Counsel can find no such written or
3
adopted rule requiring misdemeanor Defendants presence at arraignments when counsel
4

5 has entered their plea of not guilty via motion. It appears the policy dictated in the order
6
is specific to the entire Pima County Consolidated Justice Courts based on their DV court
7
structure.
8

9 QUESTION PRESENTED
10 Did the respondent justice of the peace abuse his discretion or act in excess of his
11
legal authority in creating a “longstanding” policy contrary to the Arizona Rules of
12

13
Criminal Procedure requiring mandatory Defendant appearances for lower-court

14 Domestic Violence misdemeanors without approval and rule adoption from the Arizona
15
Supreme Court?
16
JURISDICTION
17

18 Special action jurisdiction is appropriate in this matter as Petitioner has no equally

19
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal as the issue is purely legal regarding
20
proper court procedure. See Rules of Procedure for Special Action 1(A) and State ex rel.
21

22 Romley v. Martin, 203 Ariz. 46, 47, ¶ 4, 49 P.3d 1142, 1143 (App.2002). Jurisdiction also

23 is “appropriate in matters of statewide importance, issues of first impression, cases

24
involving purely legal questions, or issues that are likely to arise again.” Id. In that this
25
issue can affect every domestic violence case in Pima County Justice Court where an
26

27 attorney is retained is compelling reason itself to accept jurisdiction.

28
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION - 3
 1 ARGUMENT OF LAW
2
“The purpose of an arraignment is to formally advise defendants of the charges
3
against them and their legal rights, to assure they are provided counsel if applicable, to
4

5 enter a plea, and to set a trial date or a later court date. At an arraignment, a magistrate
6
informs defendants of the matters in Rule 14.4.” Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
7
(“ARCP”) 14.1.” Rule 14.2(c)(1) provides exceptions for limited jurisdiction courts that
8

9 “An arraignment is not necessary if…the defense counsel has entered a plea of not
10 guilty.” Procedures at arraignment include entering a plea, deciding motions on release
11
conditions, advising clients of their rights, setting pretrial conferences, and issuing
12

13
fingerprint orders when certain charges are brought, including domestic violence

14 offenses. See generally ARCP 14.4.

15
Unlike represented parties, Defendants without counsel must gain leave from the
16
court prior to obtaining waiver of an arraignment by mail. See Rule 14.2(C)(2) (“An
17

18 arraignment is not necessary if… the court permits a defendant to enter a not-guilty plea
19
by mail and to receive notice of a court date by mail”). By indicating through the
20
inclusion of the language “the court permits” for unrepresented parties but omitting it for
21

22 represented parties, the Rules make it clear that discretion to not waive arraignment may

23 be proper for unrepresented parties, but makes no room for such discretion for
24
represented parties. In fact, the Rule’s use of the language “is not necessary” indicates
25
the lack of discretion with respect to Rule 14.2(c)(1), as the Arizona Supreme Court did
26

27

28
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION - 4
 1 not use the terminology “may not be necessary” which would further indicate discretion
2
may be exercised.
3
The Criminal Rules of Procedure provide a uniform method for waiving
4
arraignments for all courts within the State of Arizona and therefore should be
5 followed by respondent judge regardless of the type of charge faced by a Defendant
in his court.
6

7 When establishing the procedures to establish due process rights of defendants are
8
vindicated the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure made it very clear that they were to
9
be adopted by all courts unless a specific rule provided otherwise—in fact, it is the very
10

11 first rule in the rulebook! See ARCP 1.1. Upon a search of the rules, and the arraignment

12 provisions, no exceptions have been given to the Pima County Justice Courts to deviate
13
from standard arraignment procedures.
14
By changing the rules for specific charges or situations, a court creates confusion,
15

16 potential additional expense, and delays which is antithetical to ARCP 1.2. Additional
17
unnecessary court hearings, including arraignments which may be waived can very easily
18
create unnecessary delays, expense, and failing to waive such hearings creates confusion
19

20 when it is specifically allowed for by the rules.

21 The Local Rules of Procedure further promote waiver of Defendant’s
22 presence when not necessary.

23 Local Rules for Pima County Justice of the Peace Courts Providing for Pre-Trial
24
Conferences in Criminal Cases (“Local Rules”) 1.4 provides, “[t]he defendant need not
25
attend the pre-trial conference in those instances where his counsel avows that he has
26

27 been in contact with the defendant regarding the action, and that, as a result of such
28
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION - 5
 1 contact, he is reasonably certain that his client will be in attendance at any further
2
proceedings.” When read in conjunction with the Arizona Rules, even the local rule aims
3
to establish a procedure which minimizes unnecessary appearances by the defendant
4

5 when counsel is retained. Consequently, both the Local Rules and Arizona Rules were
6
adopted by the Supreme Court of Arizona after extensive review.
7
The “longstanding policy” as declared by the respondent Justice of the Peace
8
is not published and has not been subject to comment and review.
9
Further, even the website for the justice court does not dictate said policy, even as
10

11 describes various problem solving courts. See

12 https://www.jp.pima.gov/Info/ProblemSolvingCourts/index.html. 3
13
Counsel has practiced in various limited jurisdiction courts4 throughout the state
14
and this is the first instance where an arraignment has ever been required as a matter of
15

16 mandated procedure based on the subject matter of the case, despite each court
17
maintaining its own variants on procedure.
18
The respondent judge has proceeded in excess of his legal authority in
19
creating a blanket policy for his court contrary to the adopted Rules of Criminal
20 Procedure and Local Rules.
21 The Supreme Court of the State is the sole authority authorized by law to “regulate
22
pleading, practice and procedure in judicial proceedings in all courts of the state.” A.R.S.
23
3

24
“Domestic Violence Court is a program developed as a result of a grant written by the Pima County Adult
25 Probation Department. Its purpose is to focus on the needs of the community as it relates to domestic violence and
the victims of domestic violence offenses.” No other policies, descriptors, or hyperlinks are given.
26 4

27 Along with the Pima County area courts which includes, Tucson, Sahuarita, Marana, and Oro Valley municipal
courts, counsel has practiced in the majority of Maricopa County municipal and justice courts, La Paz County
28 Justice Courts, Mohave County Justice courts, Kingman Municipal Court, and the Pinal County justice courts.
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION - 6
 1 12-109. While judges may institute necessary orders to ensure orderly court hearings,
2
creating blanket rules that contradict the Rules of Criminal Procedure is beyond their
3
authority.
4

5 Arguendo a judge or justice of the peace may have perfect authority to require
6
defendants’ appearance for certain appearance and/or substitute differing court dates
7
when necessary—such as in the instance where a defendant is facing a motion to modify
8

9 their release conditions5, however, this decision should be on an individual basis based
10 upon individual facts. Forcing appearances and failing to waive arraignments just based
11
on the type of charge alleged against a defendant is arbitrary and capricious and
12

13
insinuates that persons charged with those offenses deserves differing treatment than

14 other defendants charged within the court. Had the Supreme Court thought it necessary
15
to institute different rules based on the mere fact that a defendant is charged with a
16
Domestic Violence Charge, it would have done so, just as they have enunciated specific
17

18 rules for those charged with capital offenses. See e.g. ARCP Rules 6.8, 19.1 (d)-(e),
19
26.15. 26.16. The only mention regarding domestic violence offenses creating special
20
procedures in the rules is with respect to ordering the taking of fingerprints. See ARCP
21

22 Rule 14.4(g)(1).

23 The failure to follow standard procedure as dictated by the rules has created an
24
anomaly within the Pima Consolidated Justice Court for Domestic Violence proceedings
25
that is contrary to all other courts that follow said procedure. It unnecessarily burdens
26

27 5

28 As Petitioner was able to have an initial appearance, release conditions were already set in her respective matter.
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION - 7
 1 defendants and their counsel with unnecessary court appearances6 and the respondent
2
justice of the peace should be encouraged to follow the rules absent the need for an
3
articulable, individualized exception.
4

5 REMEDY OF LAW
6
Petitioner request this court find the respondent judge has abused his discretion in
7
adopting the policy and direct the justice court to order a waiver of the arraignment in the
8

9 corresponding matter, set a pretrial conference and to waive Defendant’s appearance at

10 future court hearing upon the avowal from counsel regarding maintaining contact absent
11
a specified need for Defendant’s appearance.
12

13
Further, should the underlying matter once again be dismissed, the court would be

14 requested to determine whether the question presented is an issue capable of repetition

15
yet evading review prior to making a determination as to whether the issue is moot.
16

17

18

19 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2021.

20

21 Jeffrey Grynkewich, Esq.

Counsel for Petitioner
22

23

24

25
6

26
Which at the time of filing is also contrary to Supreme Court Administrative Orders and public health policy that
27 should limit unnecessary appearances to reduce the threat of the current pandemic. See e.g. Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Order 2020-197 and it’s predecessor orders regarding limiting operations, appearances, and taking
28 appropriate measures to reduce the spread of Covid-19.
PETITION FOR SPECIAL ACTION - 8