In July 2010, Judge Bernal was nominated
and elected as a Fellow of the American Bar
Association, and she currently serves as the
only Latina member from Arizona.
PEOPLE ITEM SUBMISSIONS
Send items for the People column to arzona.attorney@azbar.org.
Items run free of charge, but because we receive many submis-
sions, we cannot guarantee when an item will run. If you also
send a photo with the item, we try to use it, depending on that
month’s space and the photo quality (high-resolution required).
pursuant to § 12-116.01, is applicable to
DUI cases and may not be waived. Section
16-954(C) provides that “an additional surcharge of ten percent shall be imposed on all
civil and criminal fines and penalties collected
pursuant to section 12-116.01 and shall be
deposited in the [clean elections] fund.”
Although § 28-1389 states, “Notwithstanding
any other law, the court shall not waive a fine or
assessment imposed pursuant to this article or a
surcharge imposed pursuant to Sec. 12-116.01
or 12-116.02 for a conviction of an offense listed in” § 28-1389, even though the 10 percent
surcharge is not listed in § 28-1389, § 16-
694(C) uses the mandatory provision shall with
reference to the application of the surcharge to
all civil and criminal fines and penalties, and does
not contain any other language suggesting the
imposition of the surcharge is discretionary in
DUI cases. Moreover, in calculating a surcharge
under the statute, the plain language of § 16-
694(C) provides that an additional surcharge
“on all civil and criminal fines and penalties collected pursuant to Sec. 12-116.01” is required,
whereby a trial court in a DUI case properly
imposes a 10 percent surcharge on related fines
imposed at sentencing. State v. Rogers, 2 CA-CR
2009-0277, 11/16/10.
APPELLATE HIGHLIGHTS
—continued from p. 44
PARTNERS | ASSOCIATES | IN-HOUSE | MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS (602) 263-0248 azlawsearch.com Confidential. Professional. Connected.
You know the
old saying...
We do, too. It’s why we
have made it our mission,
for more than 25 years,
to match the best
candidates with the
best firms and law
departments. When
you’re ready to hire or
move, you need an expert
to make the perfect fit.
PHYLLIS HAWKINS & ASSOCIATES INC.
Legal Search Consultants
is pleased to announce that
Jeffrey B. Corben
is our newest shareholder.
c
A defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights
are violated when police enter an area of the
driveway not ordinarily accessed by the public in order to conduct an investigation without a warrant requiring preclusion of evidence gathered (including the defendant’s
contemporaneous confession) as the result of
the violation. When a police officer is not
lawfully present on a defendant’s property
when obtaining their consent to search
and/or immediately leading to a confession
by a defendant who was never Mirandized,
such consent to search or confession are not
voluntary unless purged of the taint of the
illegal entry. The unconstitutional acts of an
officer taint the search or statements unless
there are sufficient intervening circumstances
between the officer’s unlawful conduct and
the consent/statements to dissipate the taint of
the illegality by the police. Where police misconduct and the consent to search and confes-
0D[ZHOO;0RUJDQ LV WKH RQO\ $9 UDWHG ODZ ¿UP LQ $UL]RQD WKDW
OLPLWV LWV SUDFWLFH WR FRPPXQLW\ DVVRFLDWLRQ ODZ DQG OLWLJDWLRQ; ;;;;;; ;;; ;;;;;;;; ;; ;
;;;;;;; ; ;;;;;; ;;
;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;
;;;;; ;;; ;;; ; ; ;;; ;;;;
;; ;;; ;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;; ;;;; ;;
Charles E. Maxwell · Brian W. Morgan · Jeffrey B. Corben
Paul R. Neil · Warren W. Nikolaus · Chad M. Gallacher
Christina N. Morgan · Lydia R. Tulin
n
n
Maxwell & Morgan, P.C.
Fairways at Superstition Springs
2500 South Power Road, Suite #103
Mesa, Arizona 85209
