A. An appeal shall be on the record of proceedings if such record includes a transcript of the proceedings. Trial de novo shall be granted in all appeals wherein a transcript of the proceedings has not been maintained. The record shall be as certified by the judge of the court of origin or as stipulated by the parties. The condition of the record shall be subject to review by the superior court which may grant trial de novo based upon the court's evaluation of the sufficiency and condition of the record.
B. After a trial de novo or a final determination the superior court may:
1. Adjudge guilt and impose sentence as it deems proper; or
2. Acquit and discharge the defendant and exonerate his bail.
C. After determination of an appeal where there is a recorded transcript, the superior court may:
1. Reverse the court of origin and remand the case to the court of origin and direct a new trial;
2. Reverse the court of origin and direct a verdict of acquittal, discharge the defendant and exonerate his bail.
3. Affirm the court of origin and remand the case to the court of origin for appropriate action.
Notes of Decisions
Palmer v. Superior Court, 560 P.2d 797 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 6× “Prior to the 1974 amendment of A.R.S. § 22-374 the Arizona system was essentially the same as that of Kentucky.”
State v. Yabe, 559 P.2d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Authority for Yabe’s contention lies with ARS Const. Art. 2, § 24, which provides a state constitutional right of appeal in criminal cases.”
Matter of Pima Cty., Juv. Action, Etc., 631 P.2d 526 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 2× “NOTES [1] We do not address an analogous procedure for appeal of criminal actions from justice or police court to superior court prescribed in A.R.S. § 22-374, except to note that in that situation only the defendant has the right to appeal.”
State v. Seyrafi, 32 P.3d 430 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“The parties agreed to submit the matter to the superi- or court for a trial de novo based on legal memoranda and the exhibits that had been admitted in city court. While the superior court upheld defendant’s convictions on all counts, it modified the sentence to ten days in jail.”
State v. Jacobson, 588 P.2d 358 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “However, A.R.S. § 22-374 was subsequently amended to provide express sanction for an affirmance or reversal of the court of origin.”
State v. Eby, 244 P.3d 1177 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “See AR.S. § 22-374; Ariz.Super. Ct. R.App. P.”
State v. Cousins, 397 P.2d 217 (Ariz. 1964).
· cites it 2× “As provided by A.R.S. § 22-374 (1956), the appeal shall be tried de novo in the superior court.”
State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court, 576 P.2d 118 (Ariz. 1978).
· cites it 6× “In 1974 the legislature amended A.R.S. § 22-374 to provide that criminal appeals from justice or police courts be heard on the record of proceedings if the record included a transcript.”
State v. Anderson, 449 P.2d 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 3× “This is made clear by A.R.S. § 22-374 which is as follows: “§ 22-374.”
State v. Superior Court, 410 P.2d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966).
“Section 22-374, subsec. B states that “the court shall discharge defendant and exonerate his bail”.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-374(0) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-374(A) — 4 cases
State v. Yabe, 559 P.2d 209 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“Authority for Yabe’s contention lies with ARS Const. Art. 2, § 24, which provides a state constitutional right of appeal in criminal cases.”
Palmer v. Superior Court, 560 P.2d 797 (Ariz. 1977).
“Prior to the 1974 amendment of A.R.S. § 22-374 the Arizona system was essentially the same as that of Kentucky.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-374(B)(l) — 2 cases
State v. Seyrafi, 32 P.3d 430 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“The parties agreed to submit the matter to the superi- or court for a trial de novo based on legal memoranda and the exhibits that had been admitted in city court. While the superior court upheld defendant’s convictions on all counts, it modified the sentence to ten days in jail.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-374(C) — 1 case
Palmer v. Superior Court, 560 P.2d 797 (Ariz. 1977).
“Prior to the 1974 amendment of A.R.S. § 22-374 the Arizona system was essentially the same as that of Kentucky.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.