State v. Ruiz

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) FRANCISCO RAMON RUIZ, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 01/26/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL No. 1 CA-CR 11-0151 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-120568-002 DT The Honorable Susan M. Brnovich, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Christopher V. Johns, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Francisco Ramon Ruiz appeals his convictions and sentences for one count of transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, two counts of misconduct involving weapons, and possession brief in of drug paraphernalia. accordance with Anders Counsel v. for California, Ruiz filed 386 U.S. a 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after searching the record on appeal, unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. he was Ruiz was granted the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation reversible error. to to review the entire record for State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). favorable is sustaining We view the facts in the light most the conviction reasonable inferences against Ruiz. and resolve all State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 of In April 2010, a grand jury indicted Ruiz on one count sale or transport pursuant to Arizona 3407(A)(7) (Supp. of dangerous Revised 2011), 1 two drugs, Statutes counts a class ( A.R.S. ) of 2 felony, section misconduct 13- involving weapons, class 4 felonies, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4), (8) (Supp. 2011), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3415(A) (2010). The following evidence was introduced at trial. 1 We cite the current version of the statute when there has been no material change since the date of the offense. 2 ¶4 On April 19, 2010, police officers responded to a 9-1-1 call reporting that a woman had threatened a victim with a gun and left the scene in a white Ford truck. located the truck parked at a nearby observed Ruiz sitting in the driver seat. The officers convenience store and They ordered Ruiz to exit the vehicle and lift his shirt so they could check for weapons. Ruiz complied and the officers observed an empty gun holster on his waistband. The officers then placed Ruiz in custody 2 Miranda 3 and read him his rights. In response to questioning, Ruiz told one officer that a pistol had fallen out of his holster when he took off his seat belt and that there was also another gun in the vehicle. The officers checked Ruiz s identification in their computer system and learned that he had prior felony convictions. ¶5 The officers conducted a search of the vehicle, which belonged to Ruiz, and located the two guns Ruiz had told them about, as well as a third gun on the passenger side floorboard. Police further seized two scales and several baggies displaying a skull logo and containing a white crystalline substance. The officers also found at least $200 in cash on Ruiz s person. 2 The officers also arrested a woman who had accompanied Ruiz in the truck. She is not a party to this appeal. 3 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3 ¶6 A forensic scientist testified at trial that the white substance was methamphetamine and that the amount of the drug seized from the truck was seventeen grams. A narcotics detective, testifying as an expert, opined that the quantity, packaging, and branding of the methamphetamine indicated that the drugs were possessed for sale. ¶7 found The jury found Ruiz guilty as charged. the State had proven the two The jury also aggravating factors it alleged: the offense involved the possession of a deadly weapon, and the defendant committed the offense for pecuniary gain. The court sentenced Ruiz to the presumptive terms of ten years flat time on count one, four and one-half years each on counts two and three, and 1.75 years on count four with all terms to run concurrently. The court granted Ruiz eighty days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶8 We have This timely appeal followed. searched error and find none. the entire record for reversible All of the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. waived his presence for jury selection absent for the two days of last trial. and was The Ruiz voluntarily record shows, however, that Ruiz was represented by counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings and that the evidence supports the jury s verdicts. Ruiz was present at sentencing, was afforded the opportunity to speak, and the sentence imposed was within 4 statutory limits. Accordingly, we affirm Ruiz s convictions and sentences. ¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Ruiz of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 156-57 (1984). Ruiz shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge /s/ ___________________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.