Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    2023 01 05 Minute Entry Hearing On Motion To Set Aside Judgment

    Uploaded by

    Narmen Ghard
    The court held a hearing on the defendant's motion to set aside judgment. The parties stipulated that the former judge did not require masks in the courtroom and use was at the discretion of trial participants. Only two individuals, a public defender and witness, elected to wear masks while speaking. The state requested admission of two statements regarding mask usage, which the court accepted. The defendant argued in support of setting aside the judgment. The state responded in opposition. The court took the matter under advisement and will issue a written decision later.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    2023 01 05 Minute Entry Hearing On Motion To Set Aside Judgment

    Uploaded by

    Narmen Ghard
    15 views2 pages
    The court held a hearing on the defendant's motion to set aside judgment. The parties stipulated that the former judge did not require masks in the courtroom and use was at the discretion of trial participants. Only two individuals, a public defender and witness, elected to wear masks while speaking. The state requested admission of two statements regarding mask usage, which the court accepted. The defendant argued in support of setting aside the judgment. The state responded in opposition. The court took the matter under advisement and will issue a written decision later.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    2023-01-05-minute-entry-hearing-on-motion-to-set-aside-judgment

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court held a hearing on the defendant's motion to set aside judgment. The parties stipulated that the former judge did not require masks in the courtroom and use was at the discretion of trial participants. Only two individuals, a public defender and witness, elected to wear masks while speaking. The state requested admission of two statements regarding mask usage, which the court accepted. The defendant argued in support of setting aside the judgment. The state responded in opposition. The court took the matter under advisement and will issue a written decision later.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    15 views2 pages

    2023 01 05 Minute Entry Hearing On Motion To Set Aside Judgment

    Uploaded by

    Narmen Ghard
    The court held a hearing on the defendant's motion to set aside judgment. The parties stipulated that the former judge did not require masks in the courtroom and use was at the discretion of trial participants. Only two individuals, a public defender and witness, elected to wear masks while speaking. The state requested admission of two statements regarding mask usage, which the court accepted. The defendant argued in support of setting aside the judgment. The state responded in opposition. The court took the matter under advisement and will issue a written decision later.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Fiedon 1162023 1035232 AM

    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, In andforthe Countyof Cochise


    JUDGE: HONORABLE TIMOTHY DICKERSON, ~~AMYJ. HUNLEY, Clerkofthe Superior Court
    DIVISION: FOUR byMICHELLE. GARCIA (16202 104 .14 AMD,Depty Clk
    COURT REPORTER: LIBERTY DIGITAL
    INTERPRETER: None HEARING DATE: 01/052023

    STATE OF ARIZONA, CASE NO: S0200CR201600734


    Plaintiff,
    vs MINUTE ENTRY: HEARING ON MOTIONTO SET
    ASIDEJUDGMENT
    NATHAN ROVAS
    HEARING START TIME: 1:31 PM
    DOB: 52911986 HEARINGEND TIME: 2:24PM
    Defendant.
    State Represented by: Michacl Powell, DeputyCounty Attorney
    Defendant not present in person norvideobutbyAndrewMarcante Esquire
    l,
    Defendant in Custody: Yes in Arizona Departmentof Corrections

    ‘At 1:31p.m.thismatter cameregularly beforetheCourtforhearingonDefendant'sMotion oSetAside


    Judgment.
    ‘The CourtnotedthattheDefendant wascurentlyconfinedintheArizonaDepartmentofCorrections.
    Ms. Marcantel waivedthepresenceoftheDefendantforthis hearing.
    ‘TheCourthadreadandreviewedal submitted items .
    UponinquirybytheCourt,bothcounselsannouncedreadytoproceed.
    Mr.Powelladvisedthatpriortothecommencementofproceedings,hehadspokentoMr.Marcantelandcounsel
    hadreacheda stipul tothefactstha
    atitwouldbebrough
    on tforth duringquestio ofwitnes
    nings Judge James
    Conlogue (Ret.).
    Mr. Jones advthatcounse
    isedl stipulat thatJudge
    ed Conlogue wouldtestifythathe didnotenanorder ter
    requiringthatmasksbeusedin thecourtroom,andthatmaskuseWouldbe atthe discretionof rialparticipants
    «and thattheonlyindividualswho ele towearmas
    cted kswhilespeak wereRodri
    ing goAndrade,DeputyPublic
    Defenderand adefensewitness, adoctor.Otherwise, everybodyelse wasnotwearing amask.
    ‘UponinquirybytheCourt,Mr.Marcantelconfirmedthestipulation.
    Ms.Powelrequestedthattwo exhibits attached to his pleading, statements by Joshua Joncs, Deputy Legal
    Advocate andTerishaDriggs,DeputyCountyAttomey,beadmittedinotherecord.
    | Pagelofz
    r Filed
    on1162023 10.5232 AM
    Date: 0110572023Case No.:SO200CR201600734
    MinuteEntry ~Motion
    ‘Therebeingnoobjection,theCourtacceptedthestipulationandthetwostatementswouldbeenteredintothe
    record.
    ‘THERECORD MAY SHOW Judge Conlogue wasexcusedfrom testimony.
    Ms.MarcantelprescniedargumentinsupportoftheMotiontoSetAside Judgment.TheCourtinquired ofand
    heardfrom Mr. Marcantel
    Mis.Powellpresentedargumentinresponse.
    ‘TheCourtmadestatefortherecord.
    ments
    Mi.Powellfutherpresented argumentinresponse.TheCourt inquire ofandheardfromd Mr. Powell.
    Ms. Marcantelpresentedargumentinrely.
    ‘Discussion washeldwithregardtowhethertherewas a cedforanyfurthertranscripts.
    IT 1S ORDERED DENYING State'srequestforadditionl transcripts at this ime.
    “TheCoutwillcontinue reviewingthetranscripts and audiofiles andwill renderawritten decision.

    mid 9b: eg ues 623


    B comy ones (0B AMaca Eig.© DIVA IAAG)
    petet sy
    iin commitls.Conoco ney Coutorschtl

    | Pogezof2

    You might also like