State v. Escobar

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

ESMERALDA MERCEDES ESCOBAR, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0418
1 CA-CR 24-0427
(Consolidated)
FILED 01-13-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Nos. CR2021-000671-001, CR2023-128045-001
The Honorable Suzanne Marie Nicholls, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Colin F. Stearns
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. ESCOBAR
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Veronika Fabian joined.

F O S T E R, Judge:

¶1 Esmeralda Escobar appeals her conviction and sentence for
misconduct involving a weapon and her reinstatement of supervised
probation for possession or use of narcotic drugs and possession or use of
drug paraphernalia. Escobar, through counsel, filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
certifying that after a diligent search of the record there was no arguable
question of law. Escobar did not file a supplemental brief. After reviewing
the record, this Court affirms Escobar’s conviction and sentence and
reinstated supervised probation.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2023, two police officers conducted a traffic stop on a
driver, later identified as Escobar. During the stop, an officer asked Escobar
whether she had any weapons in the car. Escobar admitted she did. A
search of Escobar’s vehicle revealed a firearm, Escobar’s wallet with
identification, eight blue pills, a burnt piece of tin foil and a burnt straw.
Testing showed that the firearm was functional and that the blue pills were
fentanyl. At the time of the traffic stop, Escobar was on probation for a prior
felony conviction.

¶3 During Escobar’s interaction with the officers, she also stated
“I would just rather call a lawyer, if you have a lawyer.” The officers
claimed to not hear Escobar’s request. But after they reviewed the body
camera footage, the officers admitted Escobar did make the statement. The
officers read Escobar her Miranda warning, but she did not renew her
request for an attorney after the warning.

¶4 The State charged Escobar with one count of misconduct
involving weapons (Count 1), a class 4 felony; one count of possession or use
of narcotic drugs (Count 2), a class 4 felony; and one count of possession or
use of drug paraphernalia (Count 3), a class 6 felony. A.R.S. §§ 13-
3101(A)(7)(d), -3401. Escobar pled not guilty to all charges. The State alleged

2
 STATE v. ESCOBAR
Decision of the Court

two historical prior felony convictions occurring in 2013 and 2020 and
alleged that Escobar’s offenses occurred while she was on probation citing
A.R.S. § 13-708(C), which limits sentencing options. The Adult Probation
Department also filed a petition to revoke Escobar’s probation for violating
one of the terms.

¶5 Before trial, the State offered Escobar two separate plea
agreements and Escobar filed motions relating to the charges and evidence.
Escobar rejected the plea agreements. On the motions, Escobar first moved
to sever the misconduct involving weapons charge from the drug charges.
The court granted the motion and severed the charge. Escobar also moved
to suppress statements she made to officers after requesting an attorney.
After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied Escobar’s motion to
suppress.

¶6 Trial for the misconduct involving weapons charge began in
May 2024. Escobar appeared for trial but despite the court informing
Escobar to remain readily available after recess, Escobar did not return, and
the court issued a bench warrant. Escobar remained absent throughout the
trial and the jury found Escobar guilty of misconduct involving weapons.

¶7 The court then held an aggravation hearing, where Escobar’s
probation officer testified and the jury determined Escobar was on
probation at the time of the offense. The State asked the court to consider
Escobar’s prior felony conviction from a different case. Escobar’s counsel
objected, but the court found that based on the State’s evidence, it proved
Escobar had a prior conviction. The jury then returned a verdict finding the
State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Escobar was on probation for
a prior conviction when she committed the misconduct involving weapons
offense.

¶8 Trial for the remaining counts, possession or use of narcotic
drugs and possession or use of drug paraphernalia, began later in the
month. Escobar did not appear. The State presented evidence of the pills
and other paraphernalia. After the State rested, Defense counsel moved and
argued for a judgment of acquittal, which the court denied. Escobar’s
counsel declined to present evidence and the jury found Escobar guilty on
both counts.

¶9 Sentencing occurred in July 2024 with Escobar present. The
court sentenced Escobar to a presumptive 4.5 years’ imprisonment on
Count 1 with 37 days of presentence incarceration credit. The court
designated Count 2 as a felony and placed Escobar on supervised probation

3
 STATE v. ESCOBAR
Decision of the Court

for three-year terms to commence upon her release from imprisonment for
Counts 2 and 3. The court also reinstated Escobar on probation on Count 2
for a term of 2 years for her prior case.

¶10 Escobar timely appealed and this Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A), 13-4031 and -4033.

DISCUSSION

¶11 This Court reviews Escobar’s conviction, sentence and
supervised probation for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300.

¶12 In preparation for trial, Escobar challenged the voluntary
nature of her statements made to the officers at the time of her arrest. She
argued the court should have precluded her statements about the weapon
in her car because she had invoked her right to counsel.

¶13 But even without Escobar’s statements, the firearm in
Escobar’s vehicle was sufficient to support the misconduct involving
weapons conviction. Misconduct involving weapons requires that the
defendant knowingly “[p]ossessed a deadly weapon or prohibited
weapon” as a prohibited possessor. A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4). Possession
includes “to exercise dominion or control over the property.” A.R.S. § 13-
3101(A)(7)(d). Here, the State proved Escobar had control over the gun. See
State v. Bustamante, 229 Ariz. 256, 259, ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (it is the State’s
burden to prove a weapons misconduct charge). The officers found the gun
on the driver’s seat where Escobar had been sitting before officers removed
her from the vehicle. Not only had Escobar been sitting on the gun, she was
the only occupant of the vehicle. This evidence established that the gun was
in Escobar’s control. Id. at 259, ¶¶ 11–12. Moreover, the officers testified that
the gun was in plain view of anyone looking in the vehicle, establishing that
they could lawfully seize it. See A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(2), (L); see also Mazen v.
Seidel, 189 Ariz. 196, 197 (1997) (“[C]ontraband that is in plain view . . . may
be lawfully seized.”) (cleaned up). Based on this evidence, the jury could
reasonably conclude that Esobar knew and had control of the firearm,
justifying Escobar’s conviction. This Court discerns no error.

¶14 On the second issue of Escobar’s attendance at trial, a court
may determine that a defendant’s voluntary absence waives her right to
be present at trial if she had (1) “actual notice of the date and time of the
proceeding”; (2) “notice of the right to be present” and (3) “notice that the
proceeding would go forward in [her] absence.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1.
Here, Escobar waived her presence when she failed to be present
following her morning appearance on her first day of trial. Because she

4
 STATE v. ESCOBAR
Decision of the Court

had appeared at trial, Escobar knew the date and time of her trial as well
as her right to be present. Escobar also knew, before the court recessed,
that her failure to be present would result in trial proceeding without her
and that the court would issue a warrant. Therefore, the court proceeding
without Escobar at trial was not an error.

¶15 The record reflects that the court provided Escobar with her
constitutional and statutory rights and conducted proceedings compliant
with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Counsel represented
Escobar at all stages of the proceeding. Moreover, the State presented
evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and the sentence imposed was within
the statutory guidelines. This Court declines to order briefing and affirms
Escobar’s conviction and sentence and supervised probation.

¶16 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Escobar of the status of the appeal and of her future options. Counsel has
no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue
appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). This Court, of its
own accord, grants Escobar 30 days from the date of this decision to
proceed, if she desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. See Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 31.3(a), 31.20(c). Escobar may petition for the Arizona Supreme
Court for review no later than 30 days after the date of this decision, or, if
she files a timely motion for reconsideration, no later than 15 days after the
motion is decided. See Ariz. R. Crim P. 31.21(b)(2)(A).

CONCLUSION

¶17 This Court affirms.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5