James v. State

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

JOHN ASHLEY JAMES, Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent.

No. 1 CA-SA 26-0072
FILED 05-04-2026

Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. CR2025-01035
The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge

JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Public Defender’s Office, Kingman
By Paul Amann
Counsel for Petitioner

Center for Rural American Justice, Chandler
By Celeste Robertson
Counsel for Respondent
JAMES v. STATE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Chief Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined.

G A S S, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner John Ashley James seeks special action review of
the superior court’s dismissal of criminal charges against him without
prejudice. James sought dismissal with prejudice because the State
reindicted him on the same charges after the superior court had earlier
found him not competent and not restorable (NCNR). Because James has
no speedy and adequate remedy by appeal, the court accepts jurisdiction.
Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed
the charges without prejudice, the court denies relief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2020, the State indicted James for murder and related
charges. In 2024, the superior court found James was NCNR. The superior
court then conducted a jury trial under A.R.S. § 13-4521. After the jury
found James to be dangerous (beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury), the
superior court committed James to a “Secure State Mental Health Facility”
so he could “receive education, care, supervision, and treatment to render
the defendant either competent or non-dangerous under A.R.S. § 13-
4521[.E].”

¶3 The problem, as the superior court recognized, is no such
facility existed in Arizona at the time. The court affirmed the superior
court’s Title 13 order, which “compels his placement in a secure state
mental health facility when possible.” State v. James, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0192,
2026 WL 586095, at *3 ¶ 16, *8 ¶ 40 (Ariz. App. Mar. 3, 2026) (emphasis
added).

¶4 Because no secure state mental health facility existed, the
superior court civilly committed James to the Arizona State Hospital for
treatment. In December 2025, while the above appeal was pending, the
Hospital notified the State that it planned to discharge James because he
would not benefit from ongoing treatment. The release notice did not say

2
JAMES v. STATE
Decision of the Court

whether James remained NCNR or dangerous. Based on the release notice,
the State reindicted James for the same crimes as the 2020 indictment.

¶5 James moved to dismiss the new charges with prejudice.
After a newly appointed prosecuting agency was appointed, the State
moved to dismiss the charges without prejudice. The superior court heard
from the parties, denied James’s motion, granted the State’s motion, and
dismissed the charges without prejudice. James filed this special action
asking the court to order the dismissal be with prejudice.

SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION

¶6 James has no right to appeal the superior court’s granting of
a motion to dismiss without prejudice. See State v. Kangas, 146 Ariz. 155, 157
(App. 1985) (saying a defendant may challenge a dismissal without
prejudice by special action); State v. Paris-Sheldon, 214 Ariz. 500, 508 ¶ 23
(App. 2007) (reasoning “the proper method” of challenging a dismissal
without prejudice “was through a motion for reconsideration or petition for
special action filed in” the dismissed case). Because James has no avenue to
challenge the dismissal without prejudice by appeal, the court accepts
special action jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

¶7 The court defers to the superior court’s “explicit or implicit
factual findings and will affirm as long as such findings are supported by
reasonable evidence.” Roberts v. City of Phoenix, 225 Ariz. 112, 119 ¶ 24 (App.
2010). The court will “not reweigh the evidence or reassess credibility issues
on appeal.” Williams v. King, 248 Ariz. 311, 317 ¶ 26 (App.
2020) (citing Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., L.L.C., 215 Ariz. 589, 597 ¶ 27
(App. 2007)) (“To the extent the parties presented facts from which
conflicting inferences could be drawn . . . it was for the [superior] court, not
this court, to weigh those facts.”).

¶8 Both James and the State agree dismissal was appropriate.
Rule 16.4, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure governs motions to dismiss
criminal prosecutions. Under subsection (a), the superior court may grant
the State’s motion to dismiss without prejudice an indictment if the State
shows good cause and the superior court finds “the dismissal is not to avoid
Rule 8 time limits.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 16.4(a). The rub is whether the superior
court should have dismissed the indictment with prejudice under Rule
16.4(d). Subsection (d) says, “Dismissal of a prosecution is without
prejudice to commencing another prosecution, unless the court finds that

3
JAMES v. STATE
Decision of the Court

the interests of justice require that the dismissal to be with prejudice.” Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 16.4(d).

¶9 The superior court may not dismiss an indictment with
prejudice just because the State reindicted a defendant found to be not
competent and not restorable. Instead, the superior court must base a
dismissal with prejudice on a reasoned finding “that to do otherwise would
result in some articulable harm to the defendant.” State v. Wills, 177 Ariz.
592, 594 (App. 1993) (vacating after determining court’s perfunctory
finding that interests of justice required dismissal with prejudice was
unsupported by the record because of no articulable harm); see also State v.
Granados, 172 Ariz. 405, 407 (App. 1991) (encouraging express record
findings about the interests of justice and vacating after concluding the
record did not support dismissal with prejudice). The defendant has the
burden of establishing the articulable harm. State v. Pecard, 196 Ariz. 371,
378 ¶ 35 (App. 1999).

¶10 In reaching a dismissal decision, the superior court must
“properly balance the conflicting interests involved, society’s and the
defendant’s.” See State ex rel. Jenney v. Superior Court, 122 Ariz. 89, 90 (App.
1979). In doing so, the superior court must consider “the relevant
competing interests of the defendant and the state in light of the particular
circumstances of each case.” State v. Huffman, 222 Ariz. 416, 422 ¶ 15 (App.
2009). Huffman identified a lengthy, but nonexclusive, list of relevant
considerations to weigh, including (1) the seriousness of the charges; (2)
harm from the offense; (3) defendant’s history, character, and condition; (4)
the length of any pretrial incarceration or any incarceration for related or
similar offenses; (5) the purpose and effect of imposing a sentence
authorized by the offense; (6) the effect of dismissal on public confidence in
the judicial system or on the safety and welfare of the community if the
defendant is guilty; (7) prejudice to the defendant as the result of the
passage of time; and (8) the defendant’s feelings with respect to dismissal
of the case. Id. at ¶ 14.

¶11 The most important factor is whether the delay in
prosecution would result in prejudice to the defendant such that the
dismissal would “actually hurt [the defendant’s] ability to defend against
the charges.” State v. Gilbert, 172 Ariz. 402, 404–05 (App. 1991); State v.
Hannah, 118 Ariz. 610, 611 (App. 1978). “[A] judge is required to actually
weigh the factors that bear on the [prejudice].” State v. Garcia, 170 Ariz. 245,
248 (App. 1991). And then the superior court must determine whether “the
interests of justice require that the dismissal be with prejudice” under Rule
16(d). If the superior court dismisses without prejudice but the court

4
JAMES v. STATE
Decision of the Court

concludes evidence may support a dismissal with prejudice, the court may
vacate the judgment and remand for the superior court to conduct further
proceedings on prejudice to the defendant. State v. Penney, 229 Ariz. 32, 36–
37 ¶¶ 13, 19 (App. 2012) (affirming superior court finding police interfered
with defendant’s right to counsel but remanded for further proceedings to
determine whether sufficient harm existed to dismiss with prejudice).

¶12 James leans heavily on language in the Arizona Supreme
Court’s Carson v. Gentry, ––– Ariz. ––––, 574 P.3d 205 (2025). In Carson, the
Arizona Supreme Court interpreted the civil commitment statutes at issue
here and said “the State does not have unfettered discretion to refile charges
against an NCNR defendant.” Carson, 574 P.3d at 216 ¶ 43. Carson identified
3 procedural safeguards limiting the State’s ability to refile charges against
an NCNR defendant like James. Id. at ¶¶ 43–45. First, the State must have
reasonable grounds to believe the defendant may have regained
competency before refiling charges. Id. at ¶ 43. Second, “Arizona law
expressly allows any party—or the court on its own motion—to request a
competency examination any time (even immediately) after the State files
charges. Id. at ¶ 44 (citing A.R.S. § 13-4503.A). And third, “several
institutional standards and norms disincentivize prosecutorial
abuse.” Id. at ¶ 45. “For example, prosecutors who repeatedly charge an
NCNR defendant without legal justification risk case dismissal with
prejudice and potential bar disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, as elected
officials, county attorneys and the attorney general remain accountable to
voters for unethical prosecutions.” Id. at 216–17 ¶ 45 (citations omitted).

¶13 James’s arguments fail here. The court cannot say the superior
court abused its discretion. The Hospital’s discharge gave the State at least
some reasonable grounds to refile based on James’s competence because the
Hospital said James would not benefit from ongoing treatment and did not
say James remained NCNR or dangerous. James could have requested a
new competency hearing, but the State promptly moved to dismiss the new
indictment once the prosecutor recognized James remained NCNR. And
the State has not repeatedly indicted James, but instead brought just 1
subsequent indictment, which it promptly moved to dismiss.

¶14 At bottom, subsection 13-4521.F says “[i]f the factfinder finds
that the defendant is dangerous and should be involuntarily committed, the
court shall dismiss the charges against the defendant without prejudice and
order the defendant to be committed to a secure state mental health
facility.” A.R.S. § 13-4521.F. The superior court did not err in dismissing
without prejudice here.

5
JAMES v. STATE
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶15 The court thus accepts jurisdiction but denies relief.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JT

6