State v. Mendoza

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTIAN ALEJANDRO MENDOZA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0470
FILED 01-07-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2017-124511-001
The Honorable Laura Johnson Giaquinto, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Cory Engle
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. MENDOZA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

F O S T E R, Judge:

¶1 Christian Alejandro Mendoza appeals his convictions and
sentences for aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating
liquor (“aggravated DUI”). Mendoza, 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. After reviewing the record, this Court
affirms Mendoza’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2017, Mendoza was stopped for suspicion of impaired
driving. During the stop, the trooper on scene observed Mendoza swaying
slightly and smelling of alcohol. Mendoza consented to a field sobriety test.
He displayed six cues of impairment which led to his arrest and
transportation to a police station. At the station, Mendoza consented to a
breath test which registered his blood alcohol concentration in two separate
tests at 0.109 and 0.113 respectively. The Trooper searched the Motor
Vehicle Division (“MVD”) records which revealed Mendoza’s driving
privileges were revoked.

¶3 The State charged Mendoza with two counts of aggravated
DUI, class 4 felonies. A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(1), (O)(1). The first count alleged
impairment to the slightest degree, A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)(1), and the second
count alleged Mendoza’s alcohol concentration as 0.08 or higher, A.R.S.
§ 28-1381(A)(2). The State further alleged that Mendoza’s driver’s license
was suspended or revoked.

¶4 Before the jury trial, the superior court notified Mendoza of
his right to appeal in the Final Release Order and Minute Entry after the
Not Guilty Arraignment. The superior court warned Mendoza that,
pursuant to statute, he could lose his right to appeal if he did not appear

2
 STATE v. MENDOZA
Decision of the Court

and if his absence prevented the court from proceeding with sentencing
within 90 days of his convictions.

¶5 Mendoza’s jury trial began November 5, 2018, and concluded
two days later. Mendoza was present for the first two days of trial but did
not appear on the third day, and his counsel waived his presence. In his
absence, the jury found Mendoza guilty on both counts. After the jury’s
verdict, the court issued an arrest warrant. Mendoza remained at-large
until his arrest about 18 months later.

¶6 The superior court held a sentencing hearing in April 2021,
which Mendoza attended. The court did not make findings regarding the
nature of the circumstances that delayed his sentencing and whether he had
waived of his right to appeal. It found that the State proved Mendoza’s
prior felony conviction by clear and convincing evidence and determined
that Mendoza was a category two repetitive offender. The court sentenced
Mendoza to concurrent presumptive terms of 4.5 years for each aggravated
DUI conviction and credited him 346 days of presentence incarceration.

¶7 Mendoza timely appealed to this Court in accordance with
Anders and Leon and did not provide supplemental briefing. This Court
held that because “the superior court did not determine the voluntariness
of Mendoza’s delay at the time of sentencing . . . [this Court] do[es] not infer
that Mendoza waived his right to appeal.” State v. Mendoza, 1 CA-CR 21-
0137, 2022 WL 776452, at *2, ¶ 11 (Ariz. App. Mar. 15, 2022) (mem. decision).
But because the appeal did not raise a reversible issue, this Court affirmed
Mendoza’s convictions and sentences. Id. at ¶ 14.

¶8 The State then appealed this Court’s waiver holding, and the
Arizona Supreme Court vacated this Court’s memorandum decision
consistent with its decision in State v. Brearcliffe, 254 Ariz. 579 (2023) “to
allow the parties to file briefs addressing whether A.R.S. § 13-4033(C)
applies to deprive the court of appellate jurisdiction.” State v. Mendoza, CR-
22-0097-PR, 2023 WL 2782743, at *1 (Ariz. Apr. 4, 2023) (order). This Court
“remand[ed] the case to the superior court to give [Mendoza] an
opportunity to prove his absence was involuntary” and dismissed the
appeal. Upon remand, the superior court found that Mendoza lacked notice
that his absence could impair his right to appeal and this Anders appeal
followed.

3
 STATE v. MENDOZA
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

I. This Court has appellate jurisdiction.

¶9 A criminal defendant has the right to appeal under Article II,
§ 24, of the Arizona Constitution. A defendant waives that right “if the
defendant’s absence prevents sentencing from occurring within ninety days
after conviction and the defendant fails to prove by clear and convincing
evidence at the time of sentencing that the absence was involuntary.” A.R.S.
§ 13-4033(C).

¶10 But a defendant does not waive his right to appeal unless: (1)
the defendant received notice that he may lose his right to appeal if his
absence delays sentencing from occurring within ninety days of conviction,
(2) the defendant’s waiver “must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary”
and (3) the defendant is provided the opportunity “to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that [his] absence was involuntary” at sentencing.
Brearcliffe, 254 Ariz. at 581, ¶ 1.

¶11 Because the superior court found that Mendoza did not waive
his right to appeal, this Court has jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1). This is Mendoza’s appeal pursuant
to Anders and Leon.

II. This appeal raises no reversible error.

¶12 This Court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
reviewed the record for arguable issues of reversible error. See Leon, 104
Ariz. at 300. This Court finds none.

¶13 The record reflects that as to all issues, the superior court
provided Mendoza his constitutional and statutory rights and conducted
proceedings compliant with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Counsel represented Mendoza at all stages of the proceedings against him.
The State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts. The
court properly composed and instructed the jury and there was no evidence
of misconduct. Mendoza’s sentences fall within the range prescribed by
law. However, the court calculated and awarded Mendoza an extra day of
presentencing credit. Mendoza was incarcerated on May 2, 2020, and
sentenced on April 12, 2021. When calculating presentencing credit, the
sentencing date is excluded. State v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244, 246 (App. 1987).
But this Court will not correct an illegal sentence that favors a defendant
without a cross-appeal from the State. State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 281-82
(1990).

4
 STATE v. MENDOZA
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶14 This Court affirms Mendoza’s convictions and sentences.
Unless defense counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the
Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review, counsel’s obligations
regarding Mendoza’s appeal will end after informing him of the outcome
of this appeal and his future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-
85 (1984).

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5