Court Cases Court Cases
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV 
NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  EO  NR  PR  DC  US 
 
View Summary
 
Adeline N. CIENFUEGOS Petitioner
vs.
SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona in and for the COUNTY OF MARICOPA the Honorable Jeffrey A. Hotham a Court thereof Respondent. and The STATE of Arizona ex rel. Richard M. ROMLEY Maricopa County Counsel Real Party in Interest. Calvin COKER Petitioner v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona in and for the COUNTY OF MARICOPA the Honorable Rufus C. Coulter a Court thereof Respondent. STATE of Arizona ex rel. Richard M. ROMLEY Maricopa County Counsel Real Party in Interest. Kenny W. EARLY Petitioner v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona in and for the COUNTY OF MARICOPA and the Honorable Jeffrey A. Hotham Respondent. and The STATE of Arizona ex rel. Richard M. ROMLEY Maricopa County Counsel Real Party in Interest


Click Here to Read the Full Case Summary
 
Issues:
Corrections, policy and procedure, home monitoring.
 
Case Summary:
Adeline Cienfuegos, Calvin Coker, and Kenny Early, inmates of the Arizona Department of Corrections, appeal a decision of a lower court concerning their status with the corrections system. The three were re-assigned to the Home Arrest Program by the Board of Pardons and Parole contingent upon their agreement to abide by the Conditions of Supervision. The three inmates signed the agreement with full knowledge that if they were to leave their residences it would constitute an unauthorized absence - an indictable offense. The three individuals violated the agreement and were indicted on a charge of Second Degree, Class 5 felony escape. The defendants challenged the legality of the indictment on the grounds that a person under home arrest is not in a correctional facility and therefore are parolees, not prison inmates.
 
Decision of lower jurisdiction:
The Maricopa Superior Court denied the defendants motion to dismiss the criminal indictment under the language of Arizona Revised Statutes which defines a "correctional facility as any place used for the confinement or control of a person."
 
Outcome:
Cienfuegos, et. al. lose. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. The court held that the trial courts did not abuse their discretion by denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.