State v. Ruiz Espinoza

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CAROLYN DENISE RUIZ ESPINOZA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0119

FILED 11-19-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202001303
The Honorable Lee F. Jantzen, Judge

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED

COUNSEL

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

Jill L. Evans Attorney at Law, Flagstaff
By Jill L. Evans
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. RUIZ ESPINOZA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Carolyn Denise Ruiz Espinoza (“Appellant”) appeals her
conviction and sentence for transportation of dangerous drugs for sale
(methamphetamine). Counsel for Appellant has filed this appeal in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising this court that counsel has found no errors or
arguable questions of law and asking us to search the record for
fundamental, reversible error. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567–69,
¶¶ 19–26 (2005); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999).
Appellant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria
persona; she has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm
Appellant’s conviction and sentence as corrected.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining
the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See
State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 In November 2020, an Arizona Department of Public Safety
trooper stopped Appellant on her way from California to Cedar City, Utah
for a traffic violation. The trooper asked for permission to search her car,
and Appellant agreed. The trooper found a small box that contained
approximately 72 grams of methamphetamine, valued at approximately
$7,200. After her arrest, Appellant admitted to hiding additional
methamphetamine in the trooper’s vehicle.

¶4 A grand jury indicted Appellant on Count I, possession of
dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), and Count II, transportation
of dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), each a class 2 felony.
Before trial, the court dismissed Count I. Appellant was tried in absentia.
The jury found her guilty as charged.

2
 STATE v. RUIZ ESPINOZA
Decision of the Court

¶5 The superior court sentenced Appellant to a
“super[-]mitigated” five-year prison term, with credit for 94 days’1
presentence incarceration. The court also imposed the minimum fine of
$1,000, an 82% surcharge, and various fees. We have jurisdiction over
Appellant’s timely appeal under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona
Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶6 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully
reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark,
196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. We conclude that the superior court erred in
imposing an 82% surcharge.2 Because the error disfavors Appellant, we
correct the surcharge to 78%. We find no other reversible error. The
evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports Appellant’s
conviction. The trial proceedings were conducted in compliance with
Appellant’s constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Counsel represented Appellant at all stages of the
proceedings, and the prison term imposed was within the statutory
guidelines.

¶7 Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Appellant 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). Appellant shall

1 So far as the record reflects, Appellant should have received no more than

92 days of presentence incarceration credit. The superior court incorrectly
credited Appellant’s night of arrest before she was booked into custody, see
State v. Cereceres, 166 Ariz. 14, 15–16 (App. 1990), and date of sentencing, see
State v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244, 245–46 (App. 1987). However, the State did
not file a timely cross-appeal, so this court is without jurisdiction to correct
the sentence. See State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 281–82 (1990).

2 As of the date of the offense, the applicable surcharges totaled 78%.
See
A.R.S. §§ 12-116.01(A) (42% surcharge), 12-116.01(B) (7% surcharge), 12-
116.01(C) (6% surcharge), 12-116.02(A) (13% surcharge), 16-954(A) (10%
surcharge).

3
 STATE v. RUIZ ESPINOZA
Decision of the Court

have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires,
with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶8 Appellant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed as corrected
to reflect a 78% surcharge.

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

4