From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ruiz

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Feb 28, 2020
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0113 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0113

02-28-2020

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANIEL ALVAREZ RUIZ, Appellant.

COUNSEL Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel By Kathryn A. Damstra, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson Counsel for Appellant


THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County
No. S1100CR201800311
The Honorable Christopher J. O'Neil, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel
By Kathryn A. Damstra, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson
Counsel for Appellee Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. EPPICH, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Daniel Alvarez Ruiz appeals his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia, arguing that insufficient evidence supported his convictions because the state did not establish that the offenses occurred within the court's jurisdiction nor establish that he possessed usable amounts of the drugs. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict. State v. Murray, 247 Ariz. 447, ¶ 2 (App. 2019). In February 2018, a Casa Grande police officer saw Ruiz standing in front of a house known for drug activity. After approaching Ruiz and learning his name during a short, consensual conversation, the officer discovered Ruiz had an outstanding arrest warrant. The officer arrested and handcuffed Ruiz, and while searching him noticed that he kept his left fist tightly clenched. When asked to release his hand, Ruiz refused, and he resisted when the officer pried open his fingers, revealing three bags containing methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana.

¶3 After a two-day trial, a jury found Ruiz guilty of possession of methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms on all counts, the longest of which is ten years. Ruiz timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶4 We review de novo a defendant's claim that insufficient evidence supported his convictions. State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, ¶ 15 (2011). "[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. ¶ 16 (quoting State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 66 (1990)).

¶5 Without citing any authority, Ruiz argues that insufficient evidence supported his convictions because the arresting officer "never testified that the location where he found Appellant was in Pinal County" and therefore jurisdiction was not established. But the arresting officer was asked if the events of the case happened "within Casa Grande, Pinal County, the jurisdiction of this court," and he replied yes. Ruiz's argument is meritless.

And although Ruiz characterizes the alleged failure to mention the county as jurisdictional, it appears that it would have been, at most, a failure to establish venue—an issue that may be waived in the trial court. See State v. Willoughby, 181 Ariz. 530, 537 n.7 (1995) (constitutional right to venue in county where offense occurred, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, may be waived). Given the officer's testimony, however, we need not reach this issue. --------

¶6 Ruiz also contends—again without citing any authority—that his drug possession convictions must be vacated because "no one testified as to how much of any of the three drugs constitutes a usable amount." "A 'usable quantity' is neither an element of the possession offense nor necessary to sustain a conviction for it," however. State v. Cheramie, 218 Ariz. 447, ¶ 21 (2008). Although evidence that a defendant possessed a usable amount may be useful to show that the defendant knowingly possessed drugs, that required mental state may be inferred from other evidence. See id.; see also A.R.S. §§ 13-3405(A)(1), 13-3407(A)(1), and 13-3408(A)(1) (prohibiting knowing possession of marijuana, dangerous drugs, and narcotic drugs). Here, jurors could readily infer that Ruiz knowingly possessed the drugs from the officer's testimony that Ruiz had held them in his clenched fist as he was arrested. Thus, this unsupported and undeveloped claim also fails.

Disposition

¶7 We affirm Ruiz's convictions and sentences.


Summaries of

State v. Ruiz

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Feb 28, 2020
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0113 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2020)
Case details for

State v. Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANIEL ALVAREZ RUIZ, Appellant.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO

Date published: Feb 28, 2020

Citations

No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0113 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2020)