New Indictment, New Deadline: Arizona Court Confirms You Get a Fresh Chance to Change Judges
Published August 27, 2026 | By Gordon Thompson, Phoenix DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney | Case: Williams v. State, No. 1 CA-SA 26-0232 (Ariz. App. Div. One, Aug. 27, 2026)
Quick answer: On August 27, 2026, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals held that when the State files a new, more serious indictment in the same criminal case, the defendant gets a brand-new 10-day window under Rule 10.2 to file a notice of change of judge as a matter of right — even if the case has never been dismissed and even if years have passed since the original arraignment.
What Happened in Williams v. State
The case began with an April 2024 fatal car crash in Prescott, Arizona. A grand jury initially indicted Jared Neil Williams on manslaughter, two counts of aggravated assault, and two DUI-related misdemeanors. He was arraigned in May 2024 and did not file a notice of change of judge at that time.
More than two years later, in May 2026, a second grand jury indicted Williams — in the same case number — on a substantially more serious set of charges, including second degree murder, a Class 1 dangerous felony. Williams was arraigned on the new indictment on May 6, 2026, and the case was assigned to Judge Debra Phelan. Twelve days later, Williams filed a notice of change of judge as a matter of right under Rule 10.2.
The trial court denied the notice as untimely, reasoning that Rule 10.2’s reference to “the arraignment” meant only the first arraignment in the case, back in 2024. The Yavapai County Attorney’s Office agreed, arguing the new indictment simply continued the same prosecution and did not reopen the right to strike a judge.
What the Court of Appeals Decided
The Court of Appeals disagreed and granted relief. It held that where a new indictment materially changes the charges — here, elevating manslaughter to second degree murder and adding two new felony counts — “the arraignment” in Rule 10.2(c)(1)(A) refers to the arraignment on that indictment, not the first one filed years earlier in the case.
The court distinguished its earlier decision in Woodington v. Browning (2016), which had denied a second peremptory strike where a new indictment alleged the identical charge after a grand-jury remand. Here, by contrast, the second indictment substantially escalated the severity and number of charges, and there was no court-ordered remand to the grand jury. The court also noted the practical unfairness of the State’s position: if a new indictment filed in the same case never reopened the right to a change of judge, the State alone would control whether a defendant ever gets that right again, simply by choosing whether to file new charges in the old case number or a new one.
The court did flag that Rule 10.2’s current wording is ambiguous and could benefit from a clarifying amendment — but under the rule as written today, Williams’ notice was timely.
Why This Case Matters Beyond DUI Cases
Although this case did not arise from a DUI charge, its holding applies broadly to any Arizona criminal case — misdemeanor or felony — where the State files a superseding or added indictment after the original arraignment. That includes cases where prosecutors add charges, increase the severity of a charge, or bring new counts based on the same underlying conduct.
What This Means for You
- If you’re re-indicted or charges are added in an existing case, you may have a new 10-day window to request a different judge — even if you already missed, or never used, that right the first time around.
- Timing is strict. The clock runs from the arraignment on the new indictment, and the notice must be filed within 10 judicial days and in the proper form under Rule 10.2(b) and (c).
- You only get one shot per indictment. If you’ve already participated in a contested matter before the assigned judge, or already used your one change of judge as a matter of right, you may not be able to use it again.
- Don’t assume the clerk or court will flag this for you. In Williams’ case, the trial judge herself denied the notice on her own motion. Missing this deadline — or not recognizing that a new indictment reopened it — can mean staying in front of a judge you did not choose, for the rest of the case.
- This is a procedural right, not a substantive defense. It doesn’t decide guilt or innocence, but it can meaningfully affect how your case is handled from that point forward.
If you are facing a new or superseding indictment in an Arizona criminal case — DUI-related or otherwise — it is worth having defense counsel immediately evaluate whether a new Rule 10.2 window has opened. Missing a 10-day deadline is not something that can be fixed later.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a “notice of change of judge as a matter of right” in Arizona?
Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 10.2, each side in a criminal case is entitled to one change of judge as a matter of right, without having to show cause. The party simply files a notice, in proper form, avowing good faith, and the case is reassigned to a different judge.
How long do I have to file a notice of change of judge?
Generally, a party must file the notice no later than 10 days after the arraignment, if the case is assigned to a judge and the parties received actual notice of that assignment at or before arraignment. Weekends and court holidays are excluded from that 10-day count under Rule 1.10.
Does a new indictment give me a new chance to change judges?
According to Williams v. State (2026), yes — if the new indictment is filed in the same case and materially changes or increases the charges, the 10-day window restarts from the arraignment on the new indictment, even though the case itself was never dismissed.
Does this only apply to DUI or vehicular cases?
No. The court’s ruling is not limited to DUI, vehicular manslaughter, or any specific charge type. It applies to any Arizona criminal case in which the State files a new or superseding indictment with different or added charges after the original arraignment.
What if I already used my one change of judge earlier in the case?
Rule 10.2 allows only one notice of change of judge as a matter of right per party, per case, and only before that party has participated in a contested matter before the assigned judge. The Williams decision addressed a defendant who had not previously filed a notice; it did not hold that a party gets unlimited fresh strikes with every new indictment.
What should I do if I’m re-indicted or new charges are added to my case?
Contact a criminal defense attorney immediately after arraignment on the new charges. Because the 10-day deadline is strict and courts can deny a late notice on their own motion, this is not something to wait on.
About This Analysis
This summary is provided by the office of Gordon Thompson, a Phoenix, Arizona DUI and criminal defense attorney licensed in Arizona since 1982, with 47 years of experience and more than 6,000 cases handled in Municipal and Justice Courts throughout Maricopa County, Pinal County, and Northern Arizona. His practice is limited exclusively to DUI and criminal defense. Gordon Thompson earned his law degree from Syracuse University College of Law and is a member of the State Bar of Arizona.
This article is a general summary of a published Arizona appellate opinion and is provided for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you have been charged with a crime in Arizona and have questions about a new indictment, added charges, or your right to a change of judge, contact Gordon Thompson for a free consultation at (602) 467-3680.
Case citation: Williams v. State, No. 1 CA-SA 26-0232 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. One, Aug. 27, 2026) (published opinion, interpreting Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.2(c)(1)(A); distinguishing Woodington v. Browning, 240 Ariz. 288 (App. 2016), and applying Godoy v. Hantman, 205 Ariz. 104 (2003)).