5/5/16 In State v. Angel Pete Ruiz, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0036, (4/27/16), the defendant was charged with multiple offenses including aggravated robbery. The case was tried to a jury. During trial (and presumably at the conclusion of the State’s case) the defendant made a motions for judgment of acquittal on two counts. The trial judge initially indicated it would grant the defendant’s motions, but then permitted a response from the State. The two charges were Aggravated Robbery and Robbery. After a discussion of the facts of those two charges the State sought to amend the two Robbery charges to Attempted Aggravated Robbery and Attempted Robbery and the court granted the State’s motions to do so, and then denied the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal. The minute entry issued by the trial court reflected the initial dismissal, but three lines below the dismissal it read, “IT IS ORDERED State’s motion for amendment of Counts 2 and 4 is GRANTED; therefore, the Court reverses its prior ruling, thereby not dismissing Counts 2 and 4.”
On appeal the defendant contended Double Jeopardy had attached on those two counts when the court had initially dismissed them and therefore the Double Jeopardy Clause barred convictions on those two charges.
The Court of Appeals held the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment was violated when the trial court dismissed and then reinstated the two counts, and therefore the defendant could not be convicted for those two counts. Once a Judgment of acquittal is granted the Double Jeopardy Clause applies and the defendant may no longer be prosecuted for those charges dismissed. On the facts of the case, the Court of Appeals said the question, “is whether the judge’s initial statements regarding the motion constituted a judgment of acquittal.” The court said the minute entry clearly states the motion for acquittals had been granted. The court also said a discrepancy can be clearly resolved by reference to the record [transcript of proceedings], and the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over minute entry. However, in this case the transcript was ambiguous rather than in conflict with the minute entry; therefore, the minute entry [stating the motions had been granted] clarified the oral statement.
The case is located at:
https://www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/CR20150036Opinion.pdf
If you’ve been charged with DUI or another criminal offense, getting help from an experienced and knowledgeable lawyer is one of the best things you can do for your case. Gordon Thompson has been practicing criminal and DUI law since 1979, and has used his vast experience to help countless people charged with DUI and other criminal offenses get the best result. Call Gordon Thompson now, 24/7, so he can put his many years of experience to use and help you get the best result for your DUI or criminal case.
