AZ Gunches Order 032223

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
KAREN PRICE, ) Arizona Supreme Court

) No. CV-23-0055-SA
Petitioner, )
) Maricopa County
v. ) Superior Court
) No. CR2003-038541-001
HONORABLE KATIE HOBBS IN HER )
CAPACITY AS THE GOVERNOR OF THE )
STATE OF ARIZONA, AND DIRECTOR )
RYAN THORNELL IN HIS CAPACITY AS )
THE DIRECTOR OF THE ARIZONA )
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )
REHABILITATION, AND REENTRY )
(ADCRR), )
)
Defendants/Respondents, )
)
AARON BRIAN GUNCHES, )
)
Real Party in Interest. )
__________________________________) FILED 03/22/2023
DECISION ORDER
In her Petition for Special Action, Karen Price seeks a writ of
mandamus to compel Governor Hobbs and Director Thornell to carry out
the execution of Aaron Brian Gunches.
The Arizona statute governing warrants of execution states that
this Court’s role is to “issue a warrant of execution that authorizes
the director of the state department of corrections to carry out the
execution.” A.R.S. § 13-759(A) (emphasis added); see also 1995 Ariz.
Sess. Laws ch. 198, § 3 (1st Reg. Sess.) (deleting from A.R.S. § 13-
4040 the words “directing him” (the director) to execute the sentence
at the time designated in the warrant of execution). This statutory
“authorization” does not serve as a basis for a writ of mandamus,

Price v. Hobbs, et al./Aaron Brian Gunches
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-23-0055-SA
Page 2 of 5
which “seeks to compel a public official to perform a non-
discretionary duty imposed by law.” Arizonans for Second Chances,
Rehab., & Pub. Safety v. Hobbs, 249 Ariz. 396, 404 ¶ 16 (2020); see
also A.R.S. § 12-2021 (“A writ of mandamus may be issued . . . to
compel . . . performance of an act which the law specially imposes as
a duty resulting from an office, trust or station . . . .” (emphasis
added)); see also Montgomery v. Crawford, 70 Ariz. 359, 363 (1950)
(“Where the duty in a particular situation is so plainly prescribed
as to be free from doubt and equivalent to a positive command, it is
regarded as being so far ministerial that its performance may be
compelled by mandamus, unless there be provision or implication to
the contrary.” (quoting Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Kadrie, 281 U.S. 206,
218-19 (1930))). To be clear, in the Warrant of Execution, this
Court’s language “shall, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-757(A), be executed
by administering to AARON BRIAN GUNCHES by intravenous injection a
substance or substances in a quantity sufficient to cause death”
refers only to the method of execution under § 13-757(A).
Nonetheless, we are cognizant that article 5, section 4 of the
Arizona Constitution provides that the Governor “shall take care that
the laws be faithfully executed.” Indeed, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-
231, every Governor must take an oath swearing that in discharging
the duties of the Governor’s Office, he or she will “support the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of

Page 3 of 5
the State of Arizona.” Further, the Governor only has the power to
grant reprieves, commutation, and pardons, after convictions “upon
such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as may be
provided by law.” Ariz. Const. art. 5, § 5; see also A.R.S. § 31-
402(A), (C) (providing that “[a] reprieve, commutation or pardon may
not be granted by the governor unless it has first been recommended
by the board” of executive clemency). And to protect victims’ rights
to justice and due process, “a victim of crime has a right” to a
“prompt and final conclusion of the case after the conviction and
sentence.” Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(A)(10).
The issues raised by the parties and amici regarding the
Executive Branch’s obligation to take care that the laws are
faithfully executed, to grant reprieves, commutation, and pardons
after convictions upon such conditions and with such restrictions and
limitations as may be provided by law, and to protect victims’ rights
to justice and due process present mixed questions of law and fact
that are not properly before us. See, e.g., Declaration of Director
Ryan Thornell filed by Respondents and Declaration of Frank Strada
filed by Petitioner. Accordingly, we decline to address those
issues.
Therefore, upon consideration by the Court,
IT IS ORDERED accepting jurisdiction of the Petition for Special
Action.
Page 4 of 5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the relief requested in the
Petition for Special Action without prejudice to Petitioner seeking
relief in a future action.
DATED this 22nd day of March 2023.
/s/
ROBERT BRUTINEL
Chief Justice
Justice John R. Lopez IV, Justice James P. Beene, and Justice

William G. Montgomery are recused and did not participate in the
determination of this matter.
Pursuant to Article 6, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, by

prior order of this Court, the Honorable John Pelander, Justice
(Retired) of the Arizona Supreme Court, was designated to sit on this
case until it is finally determined.
Page 5 of 5
TO:
Colleen Clase
Brad K Keogh
Sambo Dul
Noah T. Gabrielsen
Kristin K. Mayes
Joshua D. Bendor
Alexander W Samuels
Aaron Brian Gunches, ADOC 145371, Arizona State Prison, Florence –
Eyman Complex-Rynning
Emily Skinner
Jeffrey L Sparks
John Pressley Todd
Rachel H Mitchell
Nicholas Klingerman
Philip Casey Grove
David J Euchner
Kevin D Heade
Phillips Black, Inc.
John R Mills
Jared G. Keenan
Joshua M. Spears
Brett W. Johnson
Colin P. Ahler
Tracy A. Olson
Rusty D. Crandell
Linley Wilson
Jon M Sands
Cary S Sandman
Amy Armstrong
Therese Day
Jason Lewis
Alberto Rodriguez

AZ Gunches Order 032223

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AZ Gunches Order 032223

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AZ Gunches Order 032223

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

KAREN PRICE, ) Arizona Supreme Court

In her Petition for Special Action, Karen Price seeks a writ of

mandamus to compel Governor Hobbs and Director Thornell to carry out

the execution of Aaron Brian Gunches.

The Arizona statute governing warrants of execution states that

this Court’s role is to “issue a warrant of execution that authorizes

the director of the state department of corrections to carry out the

execution.” A.R.S. § 13-759(A) (emphasis added); see also 1995 Ariz.

at the time designated in the warrant of execution). This statutory

“authorization” does not serve as a basis for a writ of mandamus,

which “seeks to compel a public official to perform a non-

discretionary duty imposed by law.” Arizonans for Second Chances,

also A.R.S. § 12-2021 (“A writ of mandamus may be issued . . . to

compel . . . performance of an act which the law specially imposes as

a duty resulting from an office, trust or station . . . .” (emphasis

added)); see also Montgomery v. Crawford, 70 Ariz. 359, 363 (1950)

(“Where the duty in a particular situation is so plainly prescribed

as to be free from doubt and equivalent to a positive command, it is

regarded as being so far ministerial that its performance may be

compelled by mandamus, unless there be provision or implication to

218-19 (1930))). To be clear, in the Warrant of Execution, this

Court’s language “shall, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-757(A), be executed

by administering to AARON BRIAN GUNCHES by intravenous injection a

substance or substances in a quantity sufficient to cause death”

refers only to the method of execution under § 13-757(A).

Nonetheless, we are cognizant that article 5, section 4 of the

the laws be faithfully executed.” Indeed, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-

231, every Governor must take an oath swearing that in discharging

the duties of the Governor’s Office, he or she will “support the

Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of

grant reprieves, commutation, and pardons, after convictions “upon

such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as may be

provided by law.” Ariz. Const. art. 5, § 5; see also A.R.S. § 31-

402(A), (C) (providing that “[a] reprieve, commutation or pardon may

not be granted by the governor unless it has first been recommended

by the board” of executive clemency). And to protect victims’ rights

to justice and due process, “a victim of crime has a right” to a

sentence.” Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(A)(10).

The issues raised by the parties and amici regarding the

Executive Branch’s obligation to take care that the laws are

faithfully executed, to grant reprieves, commutation, and pardons

limitations as may be provided by law, and to protect victims’ rights

Ryan Thornell filed by Respondents and Declaration of Frank Strada

filed by Petitioner. Accordingly, we decline to address those

Therefore, upon consideration by the Court,

IT IS ORDERED accepting jurisdiction of the Petition for Special

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the relief requested in the

Petition for Special Action without prejudice to Petitioner seeking

relief in a future action.

DATED this 22nd day of March 2023.

Justice John R. Lopez IV, Justice James P. Beene, and Justice

Pursuant to Article 6, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, by

You might also like