State v. Villa-Hernandez

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 ADOLFO VILLA-HERNANDEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0271
FILED 04-15-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202101021
The Honorable Lee Frank Jantzen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Zachary Law Group PLC, Mesa
By Jessica Zachary
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. VILLA-HERNANDEZ
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe
joined.

J A C O B S, Judge:

¶1 Christian Adolfo Villa-Hernandez filed this appeal in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). His counsel has advised this Court that she found no
arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental
error. Villa-Hernandez had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but
has not done so. Villa-Hernandez was convicted of Possession of
Dangerous Drugs for Sale (Methamphetamine), Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia (Methamphetamine), and Possession of Narcotic Drugs for
Sale. He was sentenced to a combined 14 years in prison. After reviewing
the record, we affirm Villa-Hernandez’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In connection with an incident not relevant to this appeal,
police executed a search warrant and searched Villa-Hernandez’s home. In
total, police found 353 grams of methamphetamine and 421
acetaminophen/hydrocodone pills. Officers also recovered Villa-
Hernandez’s cell phone.

¶3 In a black lockbox above the fridge, police found “five
bundled clear plastic bags that contained white pills[,]” later confirmed to
be hydrocodone. The box also contained prescription bottles and “a folded-
up piece of paper that had numbers written on it.” Villa-Hernandez
testified the box was his and only he knew the combination to open it.

¶4 In a dresser in the primary bedroom, officers found a cigar
box containing digital scales, plastic baggies, “small containers . . .
[commonly used] to weigh illegal drugs[,]” and a “white crystalline
substance[,]” later confirmed to be methamphetamine. The box also
contained two casino player’s cards and a check with Villa-Hernandez’s
name on them. Officers also found a fast food bag in the dresser containing

2
 STATE v. VILLA-HERNANDEZ
Decision of the Court

a white crystalline substance wrapped in painter’s tape, later confirmed to
be methamphetamine.

¶5 Officers also found a locked safe in the bedroom. Once
unlocked, the officers found a freezer bag with “three individual tied-off
bags containing a white crystalline substance . . . packaged in a manner
consistent for sales.” The substance was later confirmed to be
methamphetamine. In a drawer next to the safe, officers found papers
suspected to be pay/owe sheets.

¶6 Villa-Hernandez’s cell phone contained text messages such
as: “Hay this is Pam may i stop by to pick some pian things. 40 dollars
worth. I’m rt next to u[;]” “Did you ever r e up[,]” to which Villa-
Hernandez responded, “Sorry tomorrow” and then “ready to go in my
hands[;]” and “Hey bro what’s up got 5 s[,]” to which Villa-Hernandez
responded “Yes[,]” “And 15 s[,]” and “Ok stop by[.]”

¶7 Officers arrested Villa-Hernandez after the search. The State
charged him with six counts: (Count 1) Possession of Dangerous Drugs for
Sale (Methamphetamine); (Count 2) Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
(Methamphetamine); (Count 3) Possession of Narcotic Drugs for Sale; and
three other unrelated charges that were later dismissed.

¶8 The State presented evidence of the recovered contraband
and text messages at trial. Villa-Hernandez testified and argued the
recovered contraband was not his. He alleged he had never seen the safe
before the police arrived. He explained the messages and papers were
related to sports betting, loans, energy drinks, and an affair.

¶9 The jury convicted Villa-Hernandez on all three counts and
found proven the aggravating factor that Counts 1 and 3 were committed
in consideration of pecuniary gain. The court sentenced Villa-Hernandez
to ten years’ imprisonment on Count 1, six months on Count 2 (concurrent
to Count 1), and four years on Count 3 (consecutive to Counts 1 and 2). He
received 6 days pre-incarceration credit.

¶10 Villa-Hernandez timely appealed. We have jurisdiction.
Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶11 We review Villa-Hernandez’s convictions and sentences for
fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
Counsel for Villa-Hernandez has advised this Court that after a diligent

3
 STATE v. VILLA-HERNANDEZ
Decision of the Court

search of the entire record, she has found no arguable questions of law. We
have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for
reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none.

¶12 All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the
Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record reflects that counsel
represented Villa-Hernandez at all critical stages of the proceedings, the
sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines, and Villa-
Hernandez received appropriate pre-sentence incarceration credit.

¶13 The jury’s verdict was supported by substantial evidence. For
Count 1, Possession of Dangerous Drugs for Sale (Methamphetamine), the
State was required to prove Villa-Hernandez knowingly possessed a
dangerous drug for the purpose of sale. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3407(A)(2),
-3401(6)(xxxviii). The evidence presented at trial showed officers found
methamphetamine in Villa-Hernandez’s home, next to two casino player’s
cards with his name, and in an amount inconsistent with personal use. The
phone messages demonstrated he had conversations with several people
asking to buy drugs from him.

¶14 For Count 2, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
(Methamphetamine), the State was required to prove Villa-Hernandez
used, or possessed with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to “pack [or]
repack” methamphetamine. See A.R.S. § 13-3415(A). The evidence
presented at trial showed officers found items used to weigh and repackage
methamphetamine into smaller sellable quantities in Villa-Hernandez’s
home, next to his casino player’s cards.

¶15 For Count 3, Possession of Narcotic Drug for Sale, the State
was required to prove that Villa-Hernandez knowingly possessed a
narcotic drug for the purpose of sale. See A.R.S. § 13-3408(A)(2). The
evidence presented at trial showed officers found hydrocodone in Villa-
Hernandez’s home, in a box only he could open, in a bag labeled “3.50
each[.]” The phone messages demonstrated he had conversations with
several people asking to buy drugs from him.

¶16 We decline to order briefing and affirm Villa-Hernandez’s
convictions and sentences.

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Upon the filing of this
decision, defense counsel shall inform Villa-Hernandez of the status of the
appeal and of his options. Counsel has no further obligations unless, upon

4
 STATE v. VILLA-HERNANDEZ
Decision of the Court

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). Villa-Hernandez shall have 30 days from the date of this
decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration
or petition for review. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20(c), 31.21(b)(2)(A).

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

5