The Arizona Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case involving the timeliness of a notice to change judges in a criminal proceeding. The court granted relief to Jared Neil Williams, who is facing serious charges related to a fatal car crash. This ruling could have implications for how similar cases are handled in the future.
The case, Williams v. State, No. 1 CA-SA 26-0232, was filed on August 27, 2026. It arose from an incident in April 2024, when a car crash in Prescott resulted in a fatality. Initially, Williams was charged with manslaughter and other offenses. However, in May 2026, he was indicted again with more severe charges, including second-degree murder. This change prompted Williams to file a notice for a change of judge, which was initially denied as untimely.
The dispute began when a grand jury issued an indictment against Williams in April 2024, charging him with manslaughter, aggravated assault, and driving under the influence. These charges were serious, but in May 2026, a new indictment was filed, significantly escalating the charges against him. This new indictment included second-degree murder and additional felony counts, leading Williams to seek a change of judge after his arraignment on the new charges.
Initially, Williams did not file a notice of change of judge after the first arraignment in May 2024. However, after the new indictment in May 2026, he filed a notice for a change of judge on May 18, 2026, shortly after his arraignment on the new charges. Judge Debra Phelan, who was overseeing the case, denied the notice, claiming it was untimely based on the interpretation of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The court ruled that the notice was indeed timely. Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma explained that Williams was entitled to one change of judge as a matter of right under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 10.2. The court noted that the rule allows for a notice of change of judge to be filed within ten days after an arraignment, and since Williams had not previously filed such a notice, his request was valid.
Judge Thumma stated, "A party must file a notice of change of judge no later than 10 days after the arraignment... The parties were given actual notice of the assignment of the May 2026 indictment to Judge Phelan at the May 6, 2026 arraignment." The court concluded that Williams' notice was timely and remanded the case for reassignment to a different judge.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the interpretation of the term “the arraignment” in Rule 10.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court highlighted the ambiguity in the rule, noting that it could benefit from a clarifying amendment. The decision ensures that defendants have the opportunity to exercise their right to a change of judge when facing new and more serious charges, even if those charges arise from the same underlying incident.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Williams' case. It sets a precedent for future cases where defendants may face enhanced charges through new indictments. The court's decision emphasizes that defendants should not be disadvantaged by the prosecution's decisions regarding how charges are filed. This ruling could lead to more equitable treatment in the judicial process, allowing defendants to seek a fair trial under different judges when circumstances change significantly.
As for what’s next, the case has been sent back to the lower court for reassignment to a different judge. Williams may still face serious charges, but he will do so under the oversight of a new judge. The ruling does not appear to be subject to appeal, as it is a special action ruling. However, it may influence other pending cases where similar issues arise.