State v. Hudson

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

COREY HUDSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0401
FILED 12-10-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2017-001761-001
The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
By Johnny Jacquez
Counsel for Appellee

Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Post-Conviction Clinic, Phoenix
By Randal McDonald, Robert J. Dormady, Andi Humphreys,
Connie Que and Erica Gaither (certified limited practice students)
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. HUDSON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey
joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Corey Hudson appeals from the denial of his petition to
expunge all records related to his convictions for the sale of marijuana. For
the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2019, Hudson was convicted of three counts of “Sale or
Transportation of Marijuana” for selling marijuana to an undercover police
officer. See A.R.S. § 13-3405(A)(4).

¶3 In 2020, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 207, the Smart
and Safe Arizona Act (“the Act”), Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 36-2850
to -2865. The Act decriminalized certain marijuana-related offenses and
authorized the expungement of related records. A.R.S. §§ 36-2852, -2862(A).
In 2021, Hudson unsuccessfully petitioned to expunge his convictions. In
2023, Hudson filed a second petition to expunge his convictions. After an
evidentiary hearing, the court denied his second petition because the
convictions were “active sales of marijuana [and] [t]herefore . . . [were] not
eligible for expungement.”

¶4 Hudson timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. §§
12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, -4033(A)(3), and 36-2862(F).

DISCUSSION

¶5 “We review the denial of a petition to expunge for an abuse
of discretion, but review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” State
v. Bouhdida, 258 Ariz. 542, 544, ¶ 7 (App. 2024) (emphasis added).

¶6 Hudson was convicted for violating Section 13-3405(A)(4),
which prohibits “[t]ransport for sale, import into this state or offer to
transport for sale or import into this state, sell, transfer or offer to sell or
transfer marijuana.” A.R.S. § 13-3405(A)(4). The Act makes eligible for

2
 STATE v. HUDSON
Decision of the Court

expungement arrests, charges, adjudications, convictions, and sentences for
“[p]ossessing, consuming or transporting two and one-half ounces or less
of marijuana.” A.R.S. § 36-2862(A)(1).

¶7 This Court in State v. Sorensen held that a conviction for
solicitation to commit possession of marijuana for sale was expungable
under Section 36-2862(A)(1) of the Act, which lists “possessing” marijuana
as expungement-eligible. 255 Ariz. 316, 320, ¶ 11 (App. 2023). The court
concluded that Section 36-2862(A)(1) “allow[s] expungement of sale-related
qualifying offenses.” Id.

¶8 In his opening brief, Hudson argued his conviction for the
sale of marijuana under Section 13-3405(A)(4) was expungable as a
sale-related qualifying offense under Sorensen. He argued that because
Section 13-3405(A)(4) also prohibits the “transport for sale” of marijuana,
his conviction was related to the expungement-eligible offense of
“transporting” marijuana. See A.R.S. § 36-2862(A)(1).

¶9 After Hudson filed his opening brief, this Court issued State
v. Bouhdida holding that convictions for the sale of marijuana under Section
13-3405(A)(4) are not eligible for expungement under the Act. 258 Ariz. at
546, ¶ 17. In Bouhdida, it was undisputed that the defendants were convicted
“of sale (not transportation) of marijuana.” Id. at 544, ¶ 3. The court affirmed
the denial of the defendants’ expungement petitions because the Act does
not list “the sale of marijuana” as an expungement-eligible offense, and
“Sorensen did not expand the scope of expungement-eligible offenses
beyond those listed in the statute.” Id. at 546, ¶ 17.

¶10 Bouhdida is directly on point. Like in Bouhdida, Hudson’s
convictions were indisputably for the sale, not transportation, of marijuana
under Section 13-3405(A)(4). The final jury instructions required the jurors
to find that Hudson “knowingly sold marijuana.” And Hudson confirmed
at the evidentiary hearing that he was convicted of selling marijuana, not
transporting it. Because “the sale of marijuana” is not eligible for
expungement, the superior court did not err by denying Hudson’s petition
to expunge on the basis that the convictions were “active sales of
marijuana.” Bouhdida, 258 Ariz. at 546, ¶ 17.

¶11 Because Bouhdida is on point, we will affirm unless Bouhdida
was “based upon clearly erroneous principles, or conditions have changed
so as to render [it] inapplicable.” Castillo v. Indus. Comm’n., 21 Ariz. App.
465, 471 (1974); see also Wells v. Fell, 231 Ariz. 525, 528, ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (we
only overrule precedent “for compelling reasons . . . something more than

3
 STATE v. HUDSON
Decision of the Court

that a prior case was wrongly decided” (cleaned up)). That is not the case
here.

¶12 In his reply brief, Hudson argues Bouhdida wrongly
concluded that the list of expungement-eligible offenses in the Act is
exhaustive, not illustrative. See Bouhdida, 258 Ariz. at 544, ¶ 9. He cites
Sorensen for support. But Sorensen did not expand the scope of
expungement-eligible offenses beyond those listed in the statute; rather, it
held that “possession for sale” fell within the Act’s enumerated
expungement-eligible offense of “possessing” marijuana. 255 Ariz. at 319–
20, ¶¶ 9–12.

¶13 Hudson also argues that Bouhdida did not answer whether
Section 13-3405(A)(4) was a unified offense. He contends that Section
13-3405(A)(4) is a “single unified offense” statute, meaning there is more
than one way to commit the offense and does not require the jury to specify
which way. And thus all convictions under Section 13-3405(A)(4) must be
expungement-eligible because there is no way to know whether a
defendant was convicted for transporting marijuana or for selling it. We
need not decide whether Section 13-3405(A)(4) is a unified offense because
the jury instructions make clear that Hudson was found guilty of the sale
of marijuana, not transportation.

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm.

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

4