STATE v. CUADRAS

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. JOSE ANTONIO CUADRAS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 8/15/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0600 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-122391-001 The Honorable Sheila A. Madden, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Jana Zinman, Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Appellee Phoenix James Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Charles R. Krull, Deputy Public Defender Attorney for Appellant Phoenix C A T T A N I, Judge ¶1 finding Jose Antonio Cuadras appeals from the superior court s that probation. he willfully violated two conditions For reasons that follow, we affirm. of his FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 In 2010, Cuadras entered a guilty plea to one count of solicitation to commit possession of narcotic drugs for sale, a Class 4 felony, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. Consistent with the terms of the agreement, the superior court suspended sentence and imposed 18 months probation. Cuadras signed of a written document detailing who a the conditions his probation. ¶3 Cuadras, is Mexican thereafter deported to Mexico. citizen, was shortly After Cuadras returned to the United States, the Adult Probation Department ( APD ) filed a petition to revoke probation, alleging several violations including (1) failure to provide APD with an address where he was residing upon his return to the United States (probation condition four) and (2) failure to report his contact with law enforcement (on May 27, 2011) to APD within 72 hours (probation condition eight). At a violation hearing, the superior court found that Cuadras had violated probation conditions four and eight, and reinstated probation. ¶4 Cuadras timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court s finding of a probation violation. See State v. Vaughn, 217 Ariz. 518, 519 n.2, ¶ 3, 176 P.3d 716, 717 n.2 (App. 2008). 2 and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12- 120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A). 2 DISCUSSION ¶5 The State must prove preponderance of the evidence. a probation violation by a Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27.8(b)(3). A trial court has discretion in determining the disposition of a probation violation. See State v. Watkins, 125 Ariz. 570, 573, 611 P.2d 923, 926 (1980); see also State v. Sanchez, 19 Ariz. App. 253, 254, 506 P.2d 644, 645 (1973). probation-violation finding unless it unsupported by any theory of evidence. We will affirm a is arbitrary or State v. Vaughn, 217 Ariz. 518, 521, ¶ 14, 176 P.3d 716, 719 (App. 2008) (citation omitted). ¶6 Cuadras argues that there is insufficient evidence he knew and understood the conditions of his probation and that the trial court therefore abused its discretion by finding that he willfully violated conditions four and eight. Cuadras admits that he signed a document detailing his probation conditions and that he did not comply with conditions four and eight. He argues, however, that his violation was not willful, because he did not understand the terms at issue. See State v. Alves, 174 Ariz. 504, 506, 851 P.2d 129, 131 (App. 1992) ( A violation 2 Absent material revisions after the relevant date, statutes cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 3 of probation must be willful. . . . [A] termination for the violation of a rule which a probationer is not, and could not be expected to be probation. ). aware of, will not support a revocation of Cuadras claims that he does not speak, read, or comprehend English, and he contends that no evidence establishes that his probation terms and conditions, which were given to him in English, were read or explained to him in Spanish to confirm that he understood them. ¶7 An appellant superior court acted has the burden arbitrarily. of State Ariz. 392, 394, 561 P.2d 313, 315 (1977). provide a transcript from the proving v. that the Villalobos, 114 Here, Cuadras did not sentencing hearing. When an incomplete record is presented to an appellate court, it must assume that any testimony or evidence not included in the record on appeal supported the action taken by the [superior] court. Id. ¶8 Even on the merits, Cuadras s argument is unavailing. A Spanish interpreter was present at the plea agreement/change of plea hearing when agreement, potential probation conditions, the superior sentence, court reviewed availability constitutional rights, of and the plea probation, rights of review with Cuadras. The interpreter was also present at the immediately-following sentencing violation hearing judge noted hearing. that 4 it was Although unclear from the the record whether Cuadras had his probation conditions translated for him, Cuadras testified that the interpreter read the probation terms and conditions to him in Spanish at the plea agreement/change of plea hearing. Thereafter, Cuadras signed the uniform conditions of supervised probation, which contained conditions four and eight. ¶9 Based established that upon the Cuadras foregoing, was given sufficient proper notice evidence of his probation conditions, and he admitted violating conditions four and eight. Accordingly, the superior court did not abuse its discretion by finding a probation violation. CONCLUSION ¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. /S/ KENT E. CATTANI, Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ANDREW W. GOULD, Presiding Judge /S/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, 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.