Filed: Jul. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 27, 2012
Summary: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 MEMORANDUM DECISION BRAMMER, Judge. 1 Edmund Abordo and Cedric Ah Sing appeal from the trial court's denial of their application for a writ of habeas corpus, in which they sought release from custody. For the following reasons, we dismiss their appeal. 2 Abordo and Sing currently are incarcerated in a privat
Summary: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 MEMORANDUM DECISION BRAMMER, Judge. 1 Edmund Abordo and Cedric Ah Sing appeal from the trial court's denial of their application for a writ of habeas corpus, in which they sought release from custody. For the following reasons, we dismiss their appeal. 2 Abordo and Sing currently are incarcerated in a private..
More
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BRAMMER, Judge.
¶1 Edmund Abordo and Cedric Ah Sing appeal from the trial court's denial of their application for a writ of habeas corpus, in which they sought release from custody. For the following reasons, we dismiss their appeal.
¶2 Abordo and Sing currently are incarcerated in a private corrections facility, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), in Eloy, Arizona, apparently related to sentences imposed in Hawaii. In January 2012, the trial court denied Abordo's and Sing's application for writ of habeas corpus, in which they claimed their confinement in Arizona was illegal because there was no contract between CCA and Hawaii. Noting, inter alia, that Abordo and Sing had "failed to present a verified pleading for filing as required by A.R.S. § 13-4122," the court ordered the clerk to assign a habeas corpus cause number to the file and dismissed the application without prejudice, giving Abordo and Sing the opportunity to refile it. Instead of filing a new, verified application, they filed a "Motion in Opposition to the Court Clerks [sic] Answering of Petitioners' Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to [A.R.S.] § 13-4125," which the court treated as a motion for reconsideration and denied.
¶3 On appeal, Abordo and Sing contend the trial court erred by dismissing their "writ of habeas corpus" and opposition motion. The state argues the court's dismissal of the application without prejudice is not an appealable order. We agree. A dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment and therefore generally is not appealable.1 McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc., 220 Ariz. 71, ¶ 4, 202 P.3d 536, 539 (App. 2009). Because the order dismissing Abordo's and Sing's application without prejudice is not a final judgment, the appeal of that order must be dismissed. See L.B. Nelson Corp. of Tucson v. W. Am. Fin. Corp., 150 Ariz. 211, 217, 722 P.2d 379, 385 (App. 1986).
¶4 For the reasons stated herein, this appeal is dismissed.
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge and PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge, concurring.
