Medders v. Conlogue
In Medders v. Conlogue, 208 Ariz. 75, P1, 90 P.3d 1241, 1242 (App. 2004), the petitioner had filed a motion to modify his release conditions with the judge assigned to his criminal case. 208 Ariz. 75, P3, 90 P.3d at 1242.
The order setting the hearing, however, was not signed by the original judge assigned to the case, but by the respondent judge, and that judge conducted the hearing. Id.
The original judge subsequently vacated the trial date and scheduled the trial before the respondent judge. Id. at P4.
Medders requested a Rule 10.2 change of judge, which the respondent judge denied, finding Medders had, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), "waived his right to a peremptory change of judge by appearing before him at the contested release-conditions hearing." Id.
The Court concluded Medders had not waived his right to a peremptory challenge because the respondent judge had not yet been assigned to Medders's case when he conducted the release conditions hearing. Id. at P10.
The Court reasoned that Rule 10.4 applies only to "the judge who is assigned the case for purposes of Rule 10.2 at the time of the contested hearing." Id.