Background
In 2021, a jury convicted Enrique Aguirre of discharging a firearm at a non-residence, and the superior court sentenced him to five years in prison. The Arizona Court of Appeals later reversed because no evidence supported the conviction. The charge was dismissed with prejudice on remand after Aguirre had spent 632 days in jail and prison.
Aguirre sought compensation under A.R.S. § 13-4296, a 2025 pilot-program statute permitting certain people whose felony convictions were reversed or vacated to pursue special damages from the State. The State moved to dismiss because Aguirre had not first filed a notice of claim under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A). The superior court denied the motion, concluding that the notice requirement did not apply, and the State petitioned for special-action relief.
The Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction because interpretation of the new statute presented a question of first impression and statewide importance, at least a dozen similar claims were pending, and prompt guidance was needed for potential claimants facing the general notice-of-claim statute’s 180-day deadline.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that a claimant bringing an erroneous-conviction action under § 13-4296 need not file a notice of claim under § 12-821.01(A). Section 13-4296 authorizes such an action “[n]otwithstanding any other law,” language the court construed as broadly allowing the new statute to control over other laws governing how and when claims against the State may be brought.
The court also emphasized that § 13-4296 establishes its own claims process, including a two-year limitations period, service on the attorney general, a presumptive 30-day response period, and other procedural requirements. Requiring compliance with the separate notice-of-claim process would fail to give effect to the statute’s opening clause and the legislature’s creation of a distinct procedure.
This interpretation did not impliedly repeal § 12-821.01. Instead, § 13-4296 creates a narrow exception for the erroneous-conviction claims it authorizes, while the general notice requirement remains fully operative for other claims against public entities. The court therefore accepted jurisdiction but denied the State relief, leaving the superior court’s denial of dismissal in place, and awarded Aguirre his costs subject to procedural compliance.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant proceeding under A.R.S. § 13-4296 is not required to file the notice of claim ordinarily required before suing an Arizona public entity.
- The phrase “notwithstanding any other law” broadly gives § 13-4296 precedence over other statutes governing how and when a claim may be brought.
- Section 13-4296 creates a limited exception to the general notice-of-claim statute, not an implied repeal of that statute.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves a threshold procedural issue for people seeking compensation under Arizona’s new erroneous-conviction pilot program. Eligible claimants may use § 13-4296’s specialized procedure without first satisfying the general 180-day notice-of-claim requirement.
The opinion also reinforces that Arizona courts will give broad effect to an unqualified “notwithstanding any other law” clause based on its text and statutory context, even when the affected statutes could theoretically be followed together.