MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
On July 9, 2008, Defendant Jodi Ann Arias was indicted on
one count of first degree premeditated murder, and a notice of
intent to seek the death penalty was filed. The victim. was
Travis Alexander, with whom defendant had a relationship.
On May 8, 2013, a jury convicted defendant of first degree
murder. On May 15, the jury found that the aggravating factor of
especially cruel had been proven. On May 23, the jury returned
with “no unanimous agreement” on the sentence to be imposed, and
the court declared. a mistrial as to the penalty phase. The retrial of the penalty phase is currently underway.
Defendant now seeks dismissal of the charge against her or
alternatively’ the dismissal of the State’s notice seeking‘ the
imposition of the death penalty. Defendant has accused the State
of prosecutorial misconduct based on allegations stemming from
an inadequate examination of the browsing history on the
victim’s computer. There is no forensic evidence proving that
any alterations occurred. However, if any alterations were made,
they were done while the computer was being reviewed by previous
A.Defendant Fails to Cite an Applicable Rule Under Which this
Court Can Overturn her Conviction at this Stage of the
Defendant requests the court to dismiss the charge against
her. Defendant has already been convicted by a jury and
therefore has no currently pending charges to dismiss. She has
incorrectly and prematurely brought her request to this court.
Although the defendant cites no rules, if she is seeking ‘to
vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 24.2(a)(2), Ariz. R. Crim.
P., that motion must be made within 60 days after the entry of
judgment and sentence. Because judgment and sentence have not
yet been entered in this case, such a motion would be premature.
See State V. Saenz, 197 Ariz. 487, 489, 16, 4 P.3d 1030, 1032
(App. 2000); State V. Fitzgerald, 232 Ariz. 208, 212, $20, 303
P.3d 519, 523 (2013). This court ruled. by minute entry of
August 9, 2013, that defendant’s motion to vacate the
aggravation phase verdict was not yet ripe.
Defendant’s claim of newly discovered material facts would
more appropriately be brought under Rule 24.2(a)(2) or in a
petition for post-conviction relief under Rule 32.1(e). Her
claim of alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the guilt phase,
would more appropriately be raised on direct appeal under Rule
31. As defendant acknowledges, case law “deals with a conviction
[ rest omitted]
See Picking apart the State response on Nov 11 2014 for analysis.