State v. Rambo

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. ) ) CHARLES STEVEN RAMBO, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 01/24/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL No. 1 CA-CR 11-0162 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. CR2009-0068 The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section And Myles Braccio, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender Attorney for Appellant Kingman G O U L D, Judge ¶1 Charles Steven Rambo appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of sale of dangerous drugs and one count of possession of dangerous drugs for sale. He argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements he made during a custodial interrogation. Specifically, contends he was not given Miranda warnings. Rambo For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History1 ¶2 In January 2009, Rambo was arrested as a result of an undercover narcotics investigation. Officer Williams advised Rambo of his Miranda rights at the scene of the arrest. Later that day, Officer Williams conducted a videotaped interview with Rambo at the Bullhead City Police Station. Prior to beginning the interview, Williams reminded Rambo that his Miranda rights still applied. ¶3 At charged and sentences. trial, Rambo received was three convicted concurrent of all three mitigated counts six-year Rambo now appeals, claiming he was never advised of his Miranda rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section Arizona Statutes 9 of the ( A.R.S. ) Constitution sections and Arizona Revised 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010).2 1 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resulting sentences. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 Rambo was sentenced on July 19, 2010. He attempted to file a notice of appeal on August 4, 2010, however the notice of appeal was signed by his wife. Rambo attempted to cure this defect by filing a signed notice of appeal on September 8, 2010 2 Discussion ¶4 Rambo argues the court improperly denied his motion to suppress the statements he made to the police. We review the court s denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion and will not disturb the ruling absent clear and manifest error. State v. Stanley, 167 Ariz. 519, 523, 809 P.2d 944, 948 (1991); State v. Zamora, 220 Ariz. 63, 67, ¶ 7, 202 P.3d 528, 532 (App. 2009). [W]e consider only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view it in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court s factual findings. State v. Fornof, 218 Ariz. 74, 76, ¶ 8, 179 P.3d 954, 956 (App. 2008). to the trial court s factual conclusions of law de novo. determinations and We defer review its Zamora, 220 Ariz. at 67, ¶ 7, 202 P.3d at 532. ¶5 The State understood his relinquished those began. has rights rights the burden and to show intelligently before any the and custodial defendant knowingly interrogation State v. Rivera, 152 Ariz. 507, 513, 733 P.2d 1090, 1096 (1987). In determining whether the State has carried that burden, we consider the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Id. and a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. This court denied Rambo s motion and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. However, the trial court granted Rambo s petition for post conviction relief and permitted him to file a delayed notice of appeal. 3 ¶6 Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the State met its burden. that The evidence presented at the suppression hearing shows Rambo was advised of his Miranda rights prior to questioning. Officer Williams testified he recited the Miranda warnings Rambo to at the scene of the arrest and subsequently documented this fact in his police report. then Although Rambo denied that Officer Williams gave him any Miranda warnings, the court properly concluded that the videotaped interview at the police station corroborated Officer Williams testimony. The videotaped interview evidences that Williams reminded Rambo that his rights still applied at the outset of questioning. court stated, indicates the that context the defendant of is the conversation acknowledging As the certainly that he was previously advised of his rights, that he understood them, that he was still willing to talk to the proceeds to talk to the police officer. 4 police officer, and he Conclusion ¶7 For the reasons above, we affirm Rambo s convictions and resulting sentences. ___________________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge CONCURRING: ____________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge ____________________________________ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, 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.