The Arizona Supreme Court will decide if the mother of a young man killed during a 2015 house party in Glendale has the right to take part in a hearing about whether her son’s murderer qualifies for a delayed appeal, it was announced last week.
On Nov. 3, the state’s high court granted review of a petition filed earlier this year by Beth Fay, whose son Carson Dumbrell died Sept. 5, 2015 after being shot by Jordan Michael Hanson during a party at the Hanson family home. The court set several filing deadlines ending in late December after which the justices will hold an oral arguments hearing.
Dumbrell, 21, was one of several partygoers Hanson, also 21, had asked to leave the house. An argument ensued during which Dumbrell was fatally shot by Hanson around 3 a.m. Hanson claimed he acted in self-defense, but he was convicted of second-degree murder during a jury trial in February 2017; he is serving a 12-year prison term.
Fay was granted victim status in Hanson’s case under the Arizona Victims’ Bill of Rights (VBR) in the state constitution. She was awarded a criminal restitution order against Hanson for more than $560,000 as part of the sentencing process.
Hanson started challenging the order since shortly after it was issued in April 2019. But in his formal appeal, a court-appointed attorney failed to address the restitution issue. Which usually mean the issue cannot be appealed later.
As a result, Hanson went to the trial judge to request post-conviction relief for the limited purpose of obtaining an order allowing a delayed appeal about the restitution order. Hanson must prove that the lack of a timely appeal was not his fault.
The parties appear to agree that Fay, as a statutory victim to whom restitution is owed, has the right to be involved if an appeal is actually filed. However, Hanson’s post-conviction effort is on hold while it’s determined whether Fay’s victim rights give her a say in whether Hanson should be allowed to file a delayed appeal.
Earlier this year a judge with the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled Fay has no such right, even though case law ensures victims the right to be heard on sentencing issues and to present arguments “for any proceeding to determine restitution.”
Fay appealed the decision, but the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in August that she does not have standing to be heard on whether Hanson satisfies court rules for qualifying for a delayed appeal.
The court of appeals noted Arizona “appropriately protects victims’ rights vigorously” through the Victims’ Bill of Rights and other legislations. However, the judges discerned “no constitutional, statutory, or rule-based right” for the victim to weigh in on whether Hanson is at fault for a delay in appealing the restitution order.
“While a delayed appeal could impact Fay’s ability “to receive prompt restitution…her general right to receive prompt restitution does not trump Hanson’s specific right to a delayed appeal upon demonstration that he did not cause the delay,” according to the court of appeals.
Fay then filed her petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. A final ruling on the victim rights issue is not expected until spring 2021.
In addition to the criminal restitution order, Dumbrell’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Hanson and his parents. A jury found the parents not liable but ordered Hanson to pay more than $2 million in a civil judgment.