State v. Chakhachiro

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOSEPH RAYMOND CHAKHACHIRO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0403
FILED 8-12-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-001167-001
The Honorable Laura Giaquinto, Judge, Pro Tempore
The Honorable Utiki Spurling Laing, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Brown & Little PLC, Chandler
By Matthew O. Brown
Counsel for Appellant

Joseph Raymond Chakhachiro, Yuma
Appellant

STATE v. CHAKHACHIRO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Joseph Raymond Chakhachiro appeals his convictions and
sentences for two counts of aggravated driving or actual physical control
while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (aggravated DUI)
and one count of possession or use of narcotic drugs. Chakhachiro’s
counsel filed a brief in accordance with 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, he found no arguable questions of law. Counsel asked
us to search the record for reversible error. Chakhachiro filed a
supplemental brief in propria persona, which we have considered. Having
reviewed the record, we affirm Chakhachiro’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

¶3 In February 2020, a police officer was parked in an unmarked
car in Phoenix. The officer saw a white Nissan Altima make a left turn
without using a turn signal. The Altima did not turn into the proper lane,
did not yield at a stop sign to oncoming traffic, and almost hit an SUV. The
officer alerted other officers in marked cars to pull over the Altima.

¶4 Another officer learned that Chakhachiro was the driver of
the Altima and that his license was revoked. The officer arrested
Chakhachiro for driving on a revoked license. The officer told Chakhachiro
he knew his license was revoked, and Chakhachiro confirmed the same.
The officer noticed Chakhachiro’s speech was slurred and slow, and his
eyes were droopy, glassy, and watery. The officer searched Chakhachiro
and found a plastic bag that contained a white powdery substance in his
front pocket. A forensic scientist later identified the substance as fentanyl.

¶5 Police transported Chakhachiro to the police precinct. While
in a booking cell, Chakhachiro urinated on the floor, even though he had

2

STATE v. CHAKHACHIRO
Decision of the Court

the opportunity to ask to use the restroom. Police then took Chakhachiro
to a hospital for observation based on suspected drug use.

¶6 While Chakhachiro was in the hospital, another officer
obtained consent to do a blood draw, and the officer later obtained a search
warrant for the hospital draw of Chakhachiro’s blood. Chakhachiro’s blood
tested positive for fentanyl, fentanyl metabolites, methamphetamine,
amphetamine, and Alprazolam.

¶7 Chakhachiro was arrested on February 7, 2020, and released
from custody the same day. The State charged him with two counts of
aggravated DUI, a class 4 felony, and two counts of possession or use of
narcotic drugs, a class 4 felony. See A.R.S. §§ 28-1383(A) (aggravated
driving or actual physical control while under the influence), 13-3408
(possession, use, administration, acquisition, sale, manufacture, or
transportation of narcotic drugs). On the State’s motion, the court later
dismissed one count of possession or use of narcotic drugs without
prejudice.

¶8 During pretrial proceedings, Chakhachiro was absent for his
March 2021 arraignment because he refused transport, and the court
vacated and reset the arraignment. He was also absent for a July 2021
hearing regarding trial continuance past the last day where the court
waived his presence. Chakhachiro was not present during a September
2021 final trial management conference where he was unavailable, his
presence was waived, and the court continued the conference. Chakhachiro
failed to appear for a March 2022 status conference, and the court issued a
bench warrant for his arrest. Chakhachiro was absent for a January 2023
oral argument regarding defense counsel’s motion to quash the warrant
where the court affirmed the bench warrant. Chakhachiro was not present
during a January 2024 settlement conference/final trial management
conference where, after Chakhachiro was apprehended and taken into
custody, he refused transport, and the court reset these conferences.
Chakhachiro failed to appear for a March 2024 trial procedure conference
where the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest.

¶9 The court held a five-day trial with eight jurors and two
alternates. Chakhachiro did not appear at trial but was represented by
counsel. The court found Chakhachiro’s absence was voluntary. At the
close of the State’s case-in-chief, Chakhachiro’s counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The
superior court denied the motion. On April 15, 2024, the jury entered guilty
verdicts on all remaining charges.

3

STATE v. CHAKHACHIRO
Decision of the Court

¶10 On April 16, 2024, Chakhachiro was apprehended on the
bench warrant. The parties stipulated before sentencing that Chakhachiro
had four prior felony convictions. In July 2024, the court sentenced
Chakhachiro to a presumptive ten-year term on each of the aggravated DUI
convictions, with a presentence incarceration credit of 161 days. See A.R.S.
§ 13-703(J). The court ordered all sentences be served concurrently.

¶11 Chakhachiro timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-
4033(A)(1).1

DISCUSSION

I. Trial

¶12 Chakhachiro first contends the court should not have
proceeded with trial in his absence because he had been in an inpatient drug
rehabilitation program since late February 2024, where he was not allowed
any communication for the first 30 days of his treatment. We review the
superior court’s decision to try Chakhachiro in his absence for an abuse of
discretion. See State v. Contreras, 258 Ariz. 326, 331, ¶ 11 (App. 2024).

¶13 While a defendant has the right to be present at every stage of
trial, he gives up that right when he voluntarily absents himself from trial.
See id. at 331, ¶ 17. “The court may infer that a defendant’s absence is
voluntary if the defendant had actual notice of the date and time of the
proceeding, notice of the right to be present, and notice that the proceeding
would go forward in the defendant’s absence.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1.

¶14 Here, Chakhachiro was present at the January 23, 2024,
settlement conference and trial management conference where the court
continued a previous trial date to April 9, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. During trial,
the court found Chakhachiro had notice of the right to be present. The court
gave Chakhachiro notice that trial would proceed in his absence if he failed
to appear for trial. The court did not abuse its discretion when it proceeded
with trial in Chakhachiro’s absence.

II. Mistrial

1 The superior court warned Chakhachiro he could lose his right to appeal

if his absence prevented him from being sentenced within 90 days of
conviction. Sentencing occurred within 90 days of conviction. Therefore,
Chakhachiro did not lose his right to appeal under Section 13-4033(C).

4

STATE v. CHAKHACHIRO
Decision of the Court

¶15 Chakhachiro next contends the court erred by not declaring a
mistrial after a police officer improperly referenced Chakhachiro’s use of
heroin.

¶16 The State told the court during a bench conference that it did
not expect the officer to reference the heroin because the State told the
officer not to discuss it. When a witness “unexpectedly volunteers
information, the trial court must decide whether a remedy short of mistrial
will cure the error.” State v. Jones, 197 Ariz. 290, 304, ¶ 32 (2000). Here, the
court gave a limiting instruction that Chakhachiro’s counsel approved—
stating that Chakhachiro was not charged with anything related to heroin
and the court was striking the officer’s statement from the record. This
court will not overturn the superior court’s denial of a motion for mistrial
if there is no abuse of discretion, and the superior court “is in the best
position to determine whether the evidence will actually affect the outcome
of the trial.” Jones, 197 Ariz. at 304, ¶ 32. We discern no abuse of discretion.

III. Warrant

¶17 Chakhachiro also contends he was entitled to a mistrial
because there was confusion about whether the court had quashed his
warrant. Chakhachiro said he relied on the court quashing the warrant
when he decided to stay at the rehabilitation facility. But Chakhachiro’s
warrant status was not relevant to his responsibility to appear for trial.
Whether the court erroneously quashed the warrant did not affect the fact
that trial was set for April 9, 2024, and Chakhachiro could be tried in his
absence if he failed to appear for trial as discussed above. Thus, the court
properly proceeded with trial.

IV. Character Evidence

¶18 Chakhachiro also contends the State, by eliciting testimony
regarding the poor condition of his veins, tried to discredit him by implying
he was a drug user, a bad person, a criminal, and untrustworthy.
Chakhachiro appears to argue the State introduced improper character
evidence. See Ariz. R. Evid. 404.

¶19 The police officer who offered that testimony testified to the
condition of Chakhachiro’s veins to explain why he pursued a search
warrant for the hospital blood draw discussed above. See Ariz. R. Evid. 401.
The officer’s testimony regarding Chakhachiro’s veins was not offered as
character evidence. We therefore discern no error.

V. No Reversible Error

5

STATE v. CHAKHACHIRO
Decision of the Court

¶20 In addition to Chakhachiro’s arguments, we have
independently reviewed the record and have found no reversible error.
The record shows the superior court afforded Chakhachiro all his
constitutional and statutory rights and conducted the proceedings in
accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Chakhachiro
was represented by counsel at all critical stages. The evidence presented at
trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The jury was properly
composed and instructed, and there is no evidence of misconduct.
Chakhachiro’s sentences fall within the range prescribed by law.

CONCLUSION

¶21 We affirm Chakhachiro’s convictions and sentences. Unless
defense counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona
Supreme Court by petition for review, his obligations regarding
Chakhachiro’s appeal will end after informing Chakhachiro of the outcome
of this appeal and his future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582,
584-85 (1984). The court, of its own accord, grants Chakhachiro 30 days
from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion
for reconsideration or a petition for review in the Arizona Supreme Court.
See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3(a), 31.20(c), 31.21(b)(2)(A).

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

6