133821, persons convicted of specifically enumerated offenses are required to register as sex offenders in Arizona. In context, the record is clear that (1) the court believed Espinoza had a duty to register as a sex offender predating and unrelated to his criminal damage conviction, (2) the presentence report, which the court read, contained the only information before it indicating he had a pre-existing duty to register, and (3) the presentence report indicated that duty had arisen from the juvenile adjudication for a sexual offense. See Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 231-32 (2011); State v. Bolt, 142 Ariz. 260, 267, 689 P.2d 519, 526 (1984). Volunteer-CASA %PDF-1.7 % It is divided into two divisions, with a total 30 Given our review of the record, we must conclude the state was correct when it conceded during oral argument that the trial court believed it was building on something that had already occurred in juvenile court and that the court thought it was dealing with the juvenile matter when it issued the order. We therefore further conclude the court believed its authority to order Espinoza to register as a sex offender arose from his juvenile adjudication. 2 To address the arguments raised by the parties, we are required to begin at the beginning of Espinoza's criminal history, as it relates to sex offender registration. The presentence report prepared for Espinoza's sentencing listed his prior adjudication for sexually molesting his younger half-sister, as reported by Espinoza, and noted that he had failed to register as a sex offender with the Arizona Department of Public Safety. The court revoked his probation and committed him to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. 32 A void judgment is a nullity and all proceedings founded on [a] void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid and ineffective for any purpose. See id. D20201560 The Honorable Espinoza's counsel asked the court to give his client one more chance to follow through, suggesting, Perhaps if you give him one shot at probation [and] give him directions he would be motivated to succeed. The results revealed that his blood alcohol concentration was above 0.15. WebArizona Court of Appeals - Division 2 400 West Congress Street Tucson,Arizona United States 85701 520-628-6954 Mon-Fri 8:00am to 5:00pm Contact This court hears Their duties are outlined in A.R.S. EstonianFilipino SlovenianSpanish WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. The juvenile court transfers jurisdiction pursuant to 8327. State v. Espinoza, No. Criminal damage neither is listed among the offenses that trigger potential sex offender registration nor was any evidence presented suggesting that Espinoza had committed the offense for sexual gratification. Chinese (Traditional)Croatian 15 We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss criminal charges for an abuse of discretion, but we review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. The trial court summarily denied Navarro's motion to suppress this evidence and, in January 2016, entered the judgment and sentence. 2 CA-CR 2022-0134 Filed April 28, 2023 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. Legal Reference & Links 20 In determining whether a challenge to a court's power to act on a specific matter sounds as a jurisdictional question, we begin with the premise that our respective state courts have no threshold jurisdiction to hear and determine any type of case unless expressly authorized to do so by Arizona's constitution or by statute. In response, Espinoza maintains the superior court lacked jurisdiction when it ordered him to register as a condition of his probation for criminal damage and, therefore, that order and any further orders based upon it were void ab initio and subject to challenge even after they became final. 35 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing the indictment against Espinoza. This appeal followed. P., to challenge the terms of his probation. Lisa ABRAMS, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF PIMA, Respondent, The State of Arizona, Real Party in Interest. No. Haitian Creole ALPHAHebrew The state does not dispute that the juvenile court never ordered Espinoza to register as a sex offender. Again, Espinoza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2.5 years' imprisonment. In that proceeding, he argued he was entitled to relief because he was actually innocent of the charge pursuant to Rule 32.1(h), a ground not automatically subject to preclusion for untimely filing. CR 2012-125141-002 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF Careers The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Javier Rivera CABRERA, Appellant. See State v. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1518, 223 P.3d 653, 65556 (2010) (concluding reasoning of two prior supreme court cases, which found jurisdictional error arising from mere procedural defects in charging process, no longer tenable); Marvin Johnson, P.C. E.V., a minor under 18 years of age, Petitioner, v. Hon. 2 ca-cr 2022-0134 filed april 28, 2023 this decision does not create The juvenile court deferred a determination of whether Espinoza would be required to register as a sex offender and struck language requiring registration from the conditions of his probation, stating, If the minor successfully completes probation, he will not be required to register as a sex offender. However, the court did not state that it would necessarily order him to so register if he failed on probation. The sole issue Navarro raises on appeal is whether the results of his warrantless breath test should have been suppressed in light of State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, 371 P.3d 627 (2016). Espinoza filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment with Prejudice as Insufficient as a Matter of Law, in which he argued he was never legally ordered to register as a sex offender by any court and therefore could not be found guilty of having failed to comply with registration requirements. The court of appeals: Court of Appeals, Division One, has statewide responsibility for appeals from the Industrial Commission, unemployment compensation rulings of the Department of Economic Security, and rulings by the Tax Court. SwahiliSwedish Volunteer-FCRB See State v. Chacon, 221 Ariz. 523, 5, 212 P.3d 861, 86364 (App.2009) (order or judgment void if issuing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; challenge to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and can never be forfeited or waived ), quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S.Ct. Please try again. 2 CA in the second example means See Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323, 31, 295 P.3d 421, 428 (2013); State v. Albe, 148 Ariz. 87, 89, 713 P.2d 288, 290 (App. Noting that Espinoza had missed appointments with the probation department and had failed to register, the state argued he was not likely to succeed on probation. v. Myers, 184 Ariz. 98, 10102, 907 P.2d 67, 7071 (1995) (noting imprecise use of jurisdictional language in cases involving non-jurisdictional error). 33 Accordingly, neither the trial court's original order compelling Espinoza to register as a sex offender nor Espinoza's two subsequent felony convictions for failing to abide by that order, support the indictment in the instant case. 133821(A) that trigger a duty to register as a sex offender, 133821(A)(19) also imposes a duty to register if a defendant is convicted of violating the registration procedures set forth in A.R.S. The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. UkrainianUrdu ALPHA So characterized, it would be merely a procedural error in the context of the court's appropriate jurisdictional authority to resolve an adult felony matter. 13 On this appeal from the trial court's dismissal order, the state argues the court abused its discretion in dismissing the indictment because Espinoza is required to register as a sex offender based on the probation terms imposed in connection with the criminal damage conviction and the convictions for registration violations in 2004 and 2008. No. No. endstream endobj startxref Because this distinct legal question is not properly before us, we do not address it. Under the rule, [t]he court must exclude from a criminal trial any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and article 2, section 8, unless the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. State v. Peoples, ___ Ariz. ___, 9, 378 P.3d 421, 424 (2016). Although our implied consent statute, A.R.S. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 11 cmt. MalayMaltese No. 2015), was controlling, adverse authority; the trial court thus declined his request for a suppression hearing. CONCURRING: JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge and J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge. We did so, however, without identifying which of the several potential jurisdictional arguments we were resolving. \*+JIVM WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANGEL NOLAND JR., Appellant. El Centro de Autoservicio, Contact Us WebArizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Powered by, Justicia para el Futuro: Planificar Para Lograr la Excelencia. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. Juv. The official case record is maintained at the BelarusianBulgarian 1 The minor in this appeal fired four shots into the air in a residential neighborhood located in Pima County, Arizona. In short, the court, counsel for the state, and counsel for Espinoza all erroneously relied on the probation officer's inaccurate assumption that the juvenile court previously had imposed on Espinoza a duty to register as a sex offender. %%EOF 1 In this appeal, the state challenges the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice the indictment against appellee Jaime Espinoza for failure to register as a sex offender. 2 We discuss only those facts relevant to the suppression ruling challenged on appeal. Volunteer-AmeriCorps, Helpful Links See State v. Smith, 228 Ariz. 126, 2, 263 P.3d 675, 676 (App. No. Arizona Revised Statutes We may affirm the court's ruling if it is legally correct for any reason. Webin the arizona court of appeals division two the state of arizona, appellee, v. angel noland jr., appellant. Although 133821 is silent on the question of whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the 2004 order, the legislature has not been similarly mute on the nature of a superior court's subject matter jurisdiction over matters of juvenile delinquency. 14 According to the state, the original superior court order requiring Espinoza to register as a condition of his probation, as well as the two convictions for registration violations that followed, all fell within the court's subject matter jurisdiction and therefore were not void ab initio, but voidable orders that could have been modified only on appeal or by proper and timely post-judgment motion. State v. Bryant, 219 Ariz. 514, 15, 200 P.3d 1011, 1015 (App.2008); see also State v. Cramer, 192 Ariz. 150, 16, 962 P.2d 224, 227 (App.1998) (A judgment that is voidable is binding and enforceable until it is reversed or vacated.). WebARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and CHRISTOPHER MANDEL, Respondent/Appellee. Web(206) 309-5013 Seattle, WA Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, DUI & DWI Website Email Profile John Merriam PREMIUM (206) 729-5252 Seattle, WA Maritime Law Website Email Profile Renee F Lee PREMIUM (425) 645-0433 Everett, WA Family Law, Arbitration & Mediation, Divorce Website Email Profile Richard John Davies PREMIUM (206) 957 WebWelcome to the Arizona Appellate Court Case website. That judgment was therefore obtained in violation of article II, 30 of the Arizona Constitution, a provision that expressly bars felony prosecutions in the absence of an indictment or information. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of four months' incarceration, pursuant to A.R.S. Commission on Judicial Conduct endstream endobj 310 0 obj <>/Metadata 76 0 R/Pages 307 0 R/StructTreeRoot 112 0 R/Type/Catalog/ViewerPreferences 324 0 R>> endobj 311 0 obj <>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]/Parent 307 0 R/Resources<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI]>>/Rotate 0/StructParents 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page>> endobj 312 0 obj <>stream 6 The exclusionary rule is, in essence, judge-made law designed to vindicate the constitutional right to privacy as embodied in the Fourth [A]mendment [] to the Constitution of the United States and in article 2 section[] 8 of the Arizona Constitution. State v. Coates, 165 Ariz. 154, 157, 797 P.2d 693, 696 (App. 19 In analyzing the 2004 order, we are mindful that not all legal errors are jurisdictional errors and that Arizona courts have, on occasion, conflated the two. The juvenile is charged as an adult with an offense listed in 13501. The Arizona Court of Appeals was established in 1965 and is the intermediate appellate court for the state. 34 When we encounter questions of subject matter jurisdiction raised for the first time long after a judgment has been entered, we enter an arena of the law where the competing values of validity and finality in judgments come into inevitable conflict. ThaiTurkish See State v. Diaz, 223 Ariz. 358, 11, 224 P.3d 174, 176-77 (2010) (stating appellant must first establish error under any standard of appellate review). As the state concedes, Espinoza's 2004 conviction for criminal damage would not authorize a trial court, under any of these provisions, to order him to register as a sex offender. The email address cannot be subscribed. a, b. Division 6 In August 2004, based on the erroneous trial court order, Espinoza was charged with failing to register as a sex offender and, after pleading guilty, was sentenced to a prison term of 2.5 years. See 8202(G) (jurisdiction of juvenile court retained only until child becomes eighteen years of age); see also In re Maricopa Cnty. Espinoza, No. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. See 8202(H) (itemizing subject matter over which adult court secures jurisdiction of offense committed by juvenile). You can explore additional available newsletters here. Accordingly, in analyzing whether a court has exceeded its jurisdiction, we are instructed to distinguish between those constitutional or statutory provisions that expressly set forth or limit the jurisdiction of a courtfrom those that merely direct how that jurisdiction should be exercised. GermanGreek IcelandicIndonesian This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Court of Appeals of Arizona,Division 2, Department A. As our supreme court has recently observed, the conclusion that a court cannot enter a valid judgment because of a procedural error does not mean that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. All Rights Reserved. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ORETTE TARIZ SHAYANA MORRIS, FKA ORETTE MANDEL, Petitioner/Appellant, and Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Azerbaijani ALPHABasque ALPHA GalicianGeorgian ALPHA We assume trial courts know the law in the absence of evidence to the contrary. e, 12 cmt. However, to the extent the trial court perceived its authority to enter the order as derived from Espinoza's juvenile adjudication for attempted child molestation, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to issue it. Web, 513 F.2d 140, 146 (9th Cir. 16 Pursuant to A.R.S. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. FinnishFrench [emailprotected] Your Service All rights reserved. WebCourt of Appeals. Arizona has two appellate courts: the court of appeals is the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. Web(206) 309-5013 Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, Juvenile Law Kirk Bernard PREMIUM (206) 298-9900 Seattle, WA Personal Injury, Business Law Laurie G. Robertson PREMIUM (844) 923-2645 Seattle, WA Divorce, Estate Planning, Family Law Carrie Fulton-Brown PREMIUM (206) 309-5013 Seattle, WA NOT FOR PUBLICATION no. This rule exists, in short, to deter unconstitutional police conduct. Corp. v. City of Broken Arrow, 766 P.2d 344, 348 (Okla.1988). 18 However, a superior court may require a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent for an act that would constitute an offense specified in either 133821(A) or (C) to register as a sex offender. See Ariz. R.Crim. That court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency matters. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. WebIN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMON CYRUS LEWIS, Appellant. Although our prior case law has established there is no abstract jurisdictional distinction created by a superior court's decision to divide itself into different administrative divisions, see Marvin Johnson, 184 Ariz. at 102, 907 P.2d at 71, our legislature has, in 8202, expressly set forth a specific, and jurisdictionally relevant, subcategory of the superior court called the juvenile court. No. Cf. In the context of challenges to criminal judgments that have become final, our state has adopted a modern approach, in conformity with the Restatement, which resists the temptation to characterize even serious procedural irregularities as violations of jurisdictional court authority. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions Decisions. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO, Appellant. And I have talked about it. RomanianRussian OPINION. 24 Applying those principles to the case before us, we must conclude that, when the superior court issued the 2004 order, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Espinoza's juvenile adjudication for attempted child molestation in either its juvenileor adult-court capacity. Each division of the court of appeals has a clerk of the court and other support personnel. That July, Espinoza appeared before a different juvenile court judge on a petition to revoke his probation. At that time, a police officer read Navarro the same admin per se form that our supreme court later held to be invalid in Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299, 5, 22, 28, 371 P.3d at 629-30, 634, 636. 3 In his opening brief, Navarro argued the warrantless breath test violated the Fourth Amendment because it was the product of coercion and involuntary consent. The state responded that the search was proper under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), which we address below. SerbianSlovak 3. 28-1383(D), followed by concurrent five-year terms of probation. You're all set! 223 Ariz. 309, 1011, 15, 223 P.3d at 655. State v. Berg, 76 Ariz. 96, 103, 259 P.2d 261, 266 (1953), overruled on other grounds by State v. Pina, 94 Ariz. 243, 245, 383 P.2d 167, 168 (1963). 13501 or those offenses wherein jurisdiction has been specifically transferred pursuant to the criteria set forth in A.R.S. CzechDanish LithuanianMacedonian 133821(J), 133822(A), 133824. Division I; Division II; Superior Court; Justice Courts; City Courts; News & Info; Our Courts AZ; Guide to AZ Courts; Committees & Commissions. And you failed to do that, sir; do you understand that? Espinoza responded, Yes. No. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. WebArizona Court of Appeals. Human Resources, Volunteer Contact us. P. 32.2(b), 32.4(a). THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER FRANCISCO NAVARRO, Appellant. 133821(D). Because the warrantless breath test to which Navarro submitted did not violate any provision of the United States or Arizona Constitutions, according to our highest respective courts, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to this case.3. Action No. And, the trial court had no other information before it suggesting any other basis for ordering him to register as a sex offender. 133821(A)(1)(18), (20)-(21).2. It verbalized skepticism about Espinoza's assertion that he would be a good candidate for probation, specifically noting he was supposed to register and had failed to do so. 5 These precedents foreclose the argument that article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution provides greater privacy protection than the federal constitution with regard to DUI breath testing. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2. Given that Espinoza had not yet been sentenced on the criminal damage offense, the prosecutor could not have been suggesting that Espinoza had failed to register for that offense. And, as noted above, the court and the parties could not have been referring to the criminal damage offense as the trigger for Espinoza's duty to register because each clearly believed that any such duty pre-existed the sentence pronouncement for the adult felony conviction. 7 In 2009, Espinoza initiated a Rule 32 proceeding seeking reversal of his 2004 conviction for failing to register. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. Arizona has two appellate courts: the court of appeals is the intermediate appellate court and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. The court of appeals was established in 1965 as the first level of appeal up from superior court. It has two divisions: Division One in Phoenix (16 judges) and Division Two in Tucson (six judges). The Arizona Court of Appeals is the intermediate appellate court for the state of Arizona. It is divided into two divisions, with a total of twenty-eight judges on the court: nineteen in Division 1, based in Phoenix, and nine in Division 2, based in Tucson . See Ariz. R.Crim. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. HindiHungarian Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 1921, 223 P.3d at 657. The court of appeals: hears and decides cases in three judge panels; has Please try again. 1984). State v. Mangum, 214 Ariz. 165, 6, 150 P.3d 252, 254 (App.2007); State v. Kuntz, 209 Ariz. 276, 5, 100 P.3d 26, 28 (App.2004) (Whether the trial court properly applied 133821(A) is a question of law that we review de novo.). See Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 11, 223 P.3d at 655. The juvenile court has original jurisdiction over all delinquency proceedings brought under the authority of this title. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002).1. State v. Caez, 202 Ariz. 133, 70, 42 P.3d 564, 586 (2002) (acknowledging suppression arguments are subject to appellate review even absent a pretrial motion to suppress). 2023 Arizona Supreme Court. 1 CA-CR 22-0581 PRPC FILED 4-27-2023 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. Upon hearing the erroneous admonition that he was required by law to submit to blood or breath testing, Navarro agreed to submit to a breath test. VietnameseWelsh Get free summaries of new Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two - Unpublished Opinions opinions delivered to your inbox! 14, 223 P.3d 653. 2 CA-SA 2022-0024 Decided: July 01, 2022 Interpreters You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. This site serves as a portal to a variety of information including case dockets on active cases, recent court decisions State v. Williams, 220 Ariz. 331, 9, 206 P.3d 780, 783 (App .2008).5 As discussed, the law is unambiguous that the offense of criminal damage is not a predicate offense for requiring sex offender registration. This includes the court jurisdiction, process, FAQ, guides, resources, and a link to And I have followed through. Espinoza's convictions in 2004 and 2008 for failing to register as a sex offender were founded entirely on Espinoza's violation of the void 2004 criminal damage probation order; therefore, those convictions are likewise invalid and ineffective for any purpose . Cramer, 192 Ariz. 150, 16, 962 P.2d at 227, quoting 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments 31.8. National Center for State Courts Privacy Notice State Bar of Arizona In the presentence report, a probation officer informed the trial court of Espinoza's adjudication of delinquency and added, A review of the Arizona Department of Public Safety records indicates the defendant never registered as a juvenile sex offender.. WebDivision Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals is located at 400 W. Congress, Tucson, Arizona 85701. hb```f``f`a`Qg`@ rL r b00v0010:1.a(%PQQV_LaBSENT(-Oz SC[|M@mL;4)t~ Our supreme court denied further review. bs%0c{^L4-\A Y 31 3 In 2003, when Espinoza was nineteen, he was indicted for burglary after he broke into a car and stole the vehicle's stereo speakers. 11 In March 2011, Espinoza again was indicted for violating the requirements of sexual offender registration. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Jaime Rene ESPINOZA, Appellee. To the extent the 2004 order can be characterized as arising from the trial court's authority to impose sanctions upon Espinoza for his adult conviction for criminal damage, that orderhowever erroneous under 133821would not have been issued in excess of the court's jurisdiction. In February 1997, then twelve-year-old Espinoza was adjudicated delinquent for attempted molestation of a child and other charges and placed on juvenile intensive probation for twelve months. Career Opportunities 8 The trial court summarily denied relief, citing Espinoza's failure to comply with Rule 32.2(b), which requires summary dismissal of an untimely notice of post-conviction relief that fails to include meritorious reasons why the claim was not stated in a timely manner. As the court noted, notwithstanding Espinoza's blanket statement that Rule 32 permits an untimely claim of actual innocence, neither Espinoza's notice nor his petition for relief set forth the reasons why the claim was not filed in a timely manner [and] has taken over four years to file. In addition to its summary denial, the court concluded Espinoza's claims lacked merit, finding Espinoza could not use the instant petition to challenge a condition of probation ordered in a separate cause number and noting he had acknowledged in a change-of-plea hearing that he had an affirmative duty to register and had not done so. On review of the trial court's ruling, we found no abuse of discretion and denied relief.

Mende Tribe Clothing, Fatal Car Accident Yesterday In Ohio, Bmcc Nursing Program Acceptance Rate, Amber Johnston Biological Father, Daughters Of Isis Imperial Court, Articles A