Wake v. State

── Wake v. State ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE JOHN ADAM WAKE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent. No. 1 CA-SA 26-0050 FILED 05-26-2026 Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2009-173414-001-DT The Honorable AnnieLaurie Van Wie, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix By Amanda Weaver, Daniel J. Inglese Counsel for Petitioner Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Quinton S. Gregory Counsel for Respondent OPINION Presiding Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge David B. Gass and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.  WAKE v. STATE Opinion of the Court B E C K E, Judge: ¶1 John Adam Wake (“Wake”) seeks special action relief from the superior court’s dismissal of his petition to seal criminal records under A.R.S. § 13-911. We accept special action jurisdiction, but deny relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2011, Wake pled guilty to one count of solicitation to commit possession of dangerous drugs for sale, a Class 4 felony. Wake’s sentence was suspended and he was placed on 18 months’ probation, ordered to pay various restitution, fines, and fees, and ordered to complete 360 hours of community service. ¶3 In 2013, the superior court entered an order of discharge from probation. The order noted that Wake did not comply with his financial or community restitution conditions, noting he had completed just 10 of the ordered 360 community service hours. Even so, the adult probation department did not file a petition to revoke his probation because Wake had not engaged in any continued criminal activity. In discharging Wake from probation, the court also approved a criminal restitution order of $2,070, which Wake satisfied in 2014. ¶4 In 2025, Wake petitioned to seal his criminal record under A.R.S. § 13-911. The State objected because Wake did not complete all of his community service hours. The State argued that because A.R.S. § 13-911(E) requires all nonmonetary terms of probation to be complete before filing, the petition should be denied. ¶5 The superior court dismissed the petition for failure to provide sufficient information because Wake had not submitted records demonstrating his completion of the 360 hours of community service. Wake then petitioned this court for special action relief. 2  WAKE v. STATE Opinion of the Court JURISDICTION ¶6 Accepting special action jurisdiction is within our discretion, “unless a statute or an order requires” us to accept jurisdiction. Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 12(a). In employing that discretion, we determine “whether remedy by appeal is equally plain, speedy, and adequate.” Id. “[B]ecause the interpretation of statutes and court rules is a matter of law reviewed de novo, cases presenting such issues are ‘particularly appropriate for review by special action.’” Yauck v. W. Town Bank & Tr., 259 Ariz. 481, 485, ¶ 12 (App. 2025) (citing Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Lee ex rel. County of Pima, 230 Ariz. 255, 257, ¶ 7 (App. 2012)). ¶7 Under A.R.S. § 13-4033(A)(5), an appeal may be taken from “[a]n order that denied the defendant’s ability to petition the court to seal the defendant’s case records pursuant to § 13-911 if the sole basis for the appeal is the defendant’s eligibility to petition the court.” But the superior court did not deny Wake’s petition. It also did not make any findings on Wake’s eligibility to petiti