Whether a state supreme court can deny an extraordinary writ application seeking sentence correction when the petitioner claims the original sentencing was illegal and violates due process

No question identified. : @ RBauv lLesuc Fi vleet 5 peh pover po be, DASA JO TH 2065 OF Tire SUf144e Cour OF He Vulked sites; Alt 30 @)c2) espec My, MohoUs We CovrT Fon av AMpUCHreerv JO Exes We THE TORE pPeTiPov For 12 W177 OF ceztwarei @ ARV 15 4 Aeceut4t 16810407 9 The Coated y OF Te Ae Def oF Onecwor*®, 1éhnb, |, FAW76O A410 Fa MOLA2). We Teaus ALD corp 7605 OK Hrs Vest certpry) PO VST Allove Pin 109 TeanaT ALLESS OR The ABV TO rorpehe. Tecephowit ConmPFeravces WIDOT Ayper Ure. OF AVCLA sein AeluMsTrAWats. @ sScoTUs ave 14,4 @) requmes cir tnws @ OF Te OFFIUst, AW Ww OfmiUk 16/7/75 OF The ap wiovs MH Oras EUJurEd 1o Ve CYSE By C0778, Lol G) TO pre Te eh irave's 46)! TO 060 PUe1y A€CEES YO A CORY OF Ws BockeT” Dispidy COTA alg Ovey Whe DackeeT” UunSer MO tee CAD For We More eclivg s 1D Phe At4zof4Z COW? Super (OL1!, AtteiwopA (O07 F : Slope ork A2tzavur Chee ¥ CL2001—O1S6IS “syphe D7 Fake de TO C1rsms 10 Ona 4 Selwetio Tie fete you Avo Th Obie OF Tite CLERE OF THe. Opa eupisior Covet. TR Vy le-1@ (0 UMM Chhe (@) HHS Geer tised By, Whe Lz b2 S27 VE A291 Be. | 5 NbLE JO 10 12? AK Tele phand UFUGLVES WIT Dre Svperion COwT Crad’ ole, SEUO Or Neceive e115 Faun We Cle2€'5 OF HCE ALO Te Clerk's Gavinte COUUEE L AIBT | V IT APIAB Jer (€flU0AAC_ CU Pe mee W NOt The fale trove. Dre Aer ravanr Has wirtthed CONN CS PUNE WH Te iter. Cov OK Wie Mz op Sy COT -~ CLUE. ju Av ATe427TO O87 AV Slecheurc 100éEK OF 77 Pocke7— pw CL2Z001-O165/S Hep will Allow palbrawan To caupyy Wiln Scodus Zuce 146). Comes of We LAST TWO Commun cps Betwee fek irate 19 (3 Wie GJ iveete. couusec. 410 Asst _K4aen (TI Clank! gavecte corse TO fez Rava, To desvsrny; TLL Tt Aah brava, tes shoud Niligaue iw 40 NiteuPr TO MeLETTHIS Couer's 21765 Fin Kecpe, Fitvg OF + U4/T OF Cernoetsei. See! | xubis #1, #2, 4 # SP 4rpered. IT Tes AT Lerssr Five po Sevso Pays Fin G16 sanraeee Belwet terPavn Aw We Cleats ace To Be feceidedk 4-0 A650USES/M6piyS Faow Tre Claik Ww Rh JO be Zerewald CECE 41/ Coumurt47vs A2Q@ USFS FrAsi— CLASS 4441 ony, G) We An rz (espect¥Ily torzas Ky (#) AD Extadsiav OF DUE Jo R/le A fey bow OF UWniT OF Caron nei Of 49Less? SIK/¥ Go) oltys Kom We teh brava’s rece; a7~ OF AV ELECTAK Docks 7 idDEX Frain De Leeucup4 SUA ComyTs Gear Coméer jy MEF cz20/~o1SEIS. COMCL US/01) Cree Moyo Fea AgpucHreo Fb1 Bx kdsvov oF Tine Snovil Se Qrrwreg (2&S pe CFO “ly austin ep (OMA LES PRAKEC, 00 Die O7leY¥/e2ors (5) SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. HC-25-0003 Respondent, FILED 06/04/2025 Vv. ) BRIAN LESLIE FINKEL, ) Petitioner. | pec ed ORDER On March 19, 2025, Petitioner Brian Leslie Finkel filed an Application for Issuance of Writ Under Original Jurisdiction Pursuant to Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. ifa)(1) and an Affidavit in Support of Application for Issuance of Writ Under Original Jurisdiction Pursuant to Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. l(a)(1), stating that “[t]}his is not a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” and requesting that “this Court correct an illegal sentence. . . pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4037(A) (a).” On March 21, 2025, the Court received and filed copies of the above Application and Affidavit. On April 9, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order of Clarifivalion (“Motion”), stating the PelLitioner believes tne Clerk of Court “may have inadvertently misfiled the Application for fasts ost Wet Voder faeladietion Pursuant boa Ares, R, Tp. l(a) (1) as a habeas corpus proceeding when it should have been filed as an extraordinary writ.” The Motion contends that the Filing of extraordinary writ for mandamus, will prejudice the Petitioner, deny {] him due process and a fair proceeding beLore the Court.” Arizona Supreme Court No. HC-25-0003 Page 2 of 4 Upon consideration, THE COURT FINDS that Petitioner’s Application for Issuance of Writ of Under Original Jurisdiction Pursuant to Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. ifa) (1) fails to state a sufficient reason for seeking a writ initially from this Court instead of the superior court or other appropriate lower court.