Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0096
01-28-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee v. DAVID CHAD MAHONE, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix By Eliza Ybarra Counsel for Appellee Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman By Jill L. Evans Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR201200345
The Honorable Dereck C. Carlisle, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix
By Eliza Ybarra
Counsel for Appellee
Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman
By Jill L. Evans
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined. OROZCO, Judge:
¶1 Appellant David Chad Mahone (Mahone) appeals his convictions and sentences from two counts of Aggravated Driving Under the Influence (Aggravated DUI) offense. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 On February 26, 2012, Mahone, a member of the Hualapai tribe, was driving a car on State Route 66 (Route 66) in Northern Arizona, near the Hualapai Indian Reservation (Reservation). After Mahone made a wide turn and drove across the white fog line located along the east bound lane of traffic, Officer C., of the Hualapai Nation Police Department, conducted a traffic stop. The Hualapai Nation Police Department has tribal, state and federal jurisdiction. A background check of the license plate on Mahone's vehicle indicated that the car's insurance had been cancelled.
¶3 Officer C. initiated the traffic stop on Route 66 at milepost 95.8, which is within the boundaries and jurisdiction of Mohave County, Arizona. However, Mahone pulled off of the highway and stopped the vehicle at milepost 96.3, which is on the Reservation. The Reservation starts at milepost 96. Although Officer C. initiated the traffic stop on state land, the investigation and arrest of Mahone took place on the Reservation.
¶4 At the stop, Officer C. observed that Mahone had watery, bloodshot eyes, and Officer C. could smell a "strong odor of an intoxicating beverage emitting from within the vehicle." Mahone admitted to Officer C. that he had consumed three alcoholic beverages that evening. In the course of his investigation, Officer C. discovered that Mahone's driver's license was revoked due to a prior Aggravated DUI conviction.
¶5 Officer C. conducted a series of field sobriety tests, several of which Mahone did not successfully complete. At that point, Officer C. asked Mahone to consent to taking a breath test using the department-issued "[p]ortable breath test." The test results indicated Mahone had a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of .177% and Mahone was arrested. At the police station, Mahone was given two breath tests. The BAC from the first test was .200% and the second test was .204%.
¶6 A Grand Jury indicted Mahone on Count One, Aggravated Driving a Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, a Class Four Felony and Count Two, Aggravated DUI with a BAC of .15% or more but less than .20%.
¶7 Mahone filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Mohave County Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because Mahone was a tribal member and the indicted offenses occurred on the Reservation. The trial court denied the motion and found it had subject matter jurisdiction for any actions that occurred between mileposts 95 and 96, regardless of where the Defendant actually stopped his vehicle. The trial court found "[t]he fact that the defendant can be charged by a different jurisdiction after he crosses [milepost] 96 doesn't necessarily preclude him from being charged in both jurisdictions."
¶8 Mahone filed a motion to suppress all evidence that was collected after milepost 96 on Route 66. The trial court denied the motion. Mahone voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated to the matter being submitted to the court on the record. At the bench trial, the court found Mahone guilty as to both charges. The trial court sentenced Mahone to six months' incarceration, various fines and fees, and ten years' probation as to each charge, to be served concurrently.
¶9 Mahone timely appealed both convictions and sentences. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21.A.1 (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and -4033.A.1 (2010).
DISCUSSION
¶10 The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over Mahone's Aggravated DUI, which was partially committed inside Mohave County by a Hualapai tribal member who was then pursued on to, and arrested within, the Reservation. Mahone argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss and motion to suppress because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings.
¶11 Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo. See State v. Flores, 218 Ariz. 407, 410, ¶ 4, 188 P.3d 706, 709 (App. 2008). We view all facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and all reasonable inferences are resolved against Mahone. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). We will not disturb a trial court's factual findings related to jurisdiction unless they are clearly erroneous. See State v. Lupe, 181 Ariz. 211, 213, 889 P.2d 4, 6 (App. 1994).
¶12 The State has subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed within its territorial borders. State v. Vaughn, 163 Ariz. 200, 202-03, 786 P.2d 1051, 1053-54 (App. 1989) ("Generally, a state has complete jurisdiction over the lands within its exterior boundaries."). Mahone argues that the Indian Country Crimes Act, grants sole and exclusive federal jurisdiction to offenses committed in Indian country and preempts state court jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution when a criminal offense involving a tribal member occurs on a tribal reservation. However, this Act did not divest the state from jurisdiction under the particular facts of this case.
18 U.S.C. §§ 1152-53 (1988) ("Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to the Indian country.").
¶13 In Lupe, the appellant was arrested, charged, and convicted of aggravated DUI. 181 Ariz. at 213, 889 P.2d at 6. Similar to Mahone's traffic stop, a police officer observed Lupe driving recklessly on state land. See id. at 212, 889 P.2d at 5. Also similar to Mahone's traffic stop, the officer in Lupe activated his overhead emergency lights before entering the Reservation, but the actual stop occurred on the Reservation. See id. at 213, 889 P.2d at 6.
¶14 Under those facts, we held that the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over the DUI because the offense was committed on state land, the officer began his pursuit on state land, and "[a]ppellant entered the reservation land before stopping in response to the officer's flashing lights." Id. at 214-15, 889 P.2d at 7-8. "The State has a particularly strong policy interest in not allowing suspects to narrowly escape arrest and avoid this State's jurisdiction over offenses committed within this State by fleeing across the border to another jurisdiction." Id. at 214, 889 P.2d at 7. "Such an arrest does not interfere with the tribal government's ability to protect the political integrity of the tribe or the welfare of tribal members as they conduct their business on the reservation." Id. In Lupe, we also stated that "an arrest of a tribal member made on the reservation after a close pursuit that began on state land does not interfere with tribal sovereignty where no extradition agreement exists. [Therefore, the] trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over [a]ppellant." Id. at 214-15, 889 P.2d at 7-8.
¶15 A state is also not deprived of jurisdiction for crimes committed within its territorial borders, pursuant to the Indian Country Crimes Act, just because the arrest occurred outside of the state's jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 13-3848 (2010) (permitting the arrest of individuals who are to be extradited to another jurisdiction for prosecution). Moreover, a court is not divested of subject matter jurisdiction for a crime committed within state territory simply because evidence of the crime was collected outside of the court's jurisdiction. See, e.g., State v. Brady, 122 Ariz. 228, 231, 594 P.2d 94, 97 (1979) (holding that the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to summon an out-of-state witness to testify on her behalf at trial was a denial of the defendant's due process, thus permitting out-of-state evidence in an in-state proceeding).
¶16 In this case, Officer C. observed Mahone driving erractically on state land. Officer C. initiated the traffic stop while on state land when he turned on his overhead emergency lights at milepost 95.8. Although some of the evidence for the DUI was collected on Reservation land, that does not change the fact that Mahone was arrested for and convicted of crimes that occurred on state land.
¶17 Therefore the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over Mahone's Aggravated DUI charges.
CONCLUSION
¶18 For the above reasons, we affirm Mahone's convictions and sentences.