State v. Nishite-Calara

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTIE ANN NISHITE-CALARA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0419
FILED 10-31-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-120055-001
The Honorable David W. Garbarino, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

APPEARANCES

Christie Ann Nishite-Calara, Goodyear
Appellant

Michael J. Dew Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Michael J. Dew
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice M. Jones
Counsel for Appellee
 STATE v. NISHITE-CALARA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in
which Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Christie Ann Nishite-Calara appeals her convictions and
sentences for two counts of theft of means of transportation, one count of
possession of a dangerous drug, and one count of possession of drug
paraphernalia. Nishite-Calara’s 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, he found no arguable
question of law. Nishite-Calara filed a supplemental brief. After reviewing
her brief and the record, we affirm her convictions and sentences as
modified.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
jury’s verdicts and resolve all reasonable inferences against Nishite-Calara.
State v. Fierro, 254 Ariz. 35, 38, ¶ 2 (2022).

¶3 On May 9, 2023, while responding to a report of a stolen
trailer, police spotted a car with a damaged windshield towing a trailer
secured with ropes. Nishite-Calara was the car’s driver. She was
accompanied by four passengers. When police stopped and questioned
Nishite-Calara about the trailer and the car’s damaged windshield, she
gave conflicting statements, initially blaming her ex-husband, then her
fiancé, for the damaged windshield. She claimed the trailer belonged to an
ex-boyfriend whose name she could not recall and stated the passengers
were friends helping her move.

¶4 Police arrested Nishite-Calara after confirming the car she
was driving was reported stolen. While in custody, she stated “Mexican”
“guys” gave her the car and expressed frustration when the passengers
were released.

¶5 Police found a plastic bag with a crystalline substance in
Nishite-Calara’s pocket. They also found two blue pills in the car—one on

2
 STATE v. NISHITE-CALARA
Decision of the Court

the driver’s seat and one on the floorboard. Forensic testing confirmed the
crystalline substance was methamphetamine and the pills were fentanyl.

¶6 The State charged Nishite-Calara with two counts of theft of
means of transportation for the car and the trailer (counts 1 and 2), class 3
felonies, one count of possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine)
(count 3), a class 4 felony, one count of possession of a narcotic drug
(fentanyl) (count 4), a class 4 felony, and one count of possession of drug
paraphernalia (count 5), a class 6 felony. A.R.S. §§ 13-1814(A)(1),
-3407(A)(1), -3408(A)(1), -3415(A). The case was tried by jury. At trial, the
State called five witnesses to testify: the owners of the car and the trailer,
two responding police officers, and a forensic scientist. The State also
presented body camera footage of the responding officers’ encounter with
Nishite-Calara.

¶7 At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, the trial court denied
Nishite-Calara’s motion for a directed verdict on all charges under Arizona
Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The jury acquitted Nishite-Calara of
possession of a narcotic drug but convicted her on all other charges. The
jury also found the following aggravating factors: (1) Nishite-Calara was on
felony probation at the time of the offenses; (2) she committed the theft
offenses as consideration for the receipt of anything of pecuniary value; and
(3) she caused financial harm to the victims.

¶8 At sentencing, the trial court found Nishite-Calara was a
category 3 repetitive offender with two prior felony convictions. A.R.S.
§ 13-703(C). The court also found mitigating factors, including Nishite-
Calara’s drug addiction and remorse; and balanced the aggravating with
the mitigating factors. The court sentenced her to presumptive terms of
11.25 years imprisonment for both counts 1 and 2, 10 years imprisonment
for count 3, and 3.75 years imprisonment for count 5, with no presentence
incarceration credit.1 A.R.S. § 13-703(J). The court also ordered $300 in
restitution for count 2. A.R.S. § 13-804(A).

¶9 Nishite-Calara timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A),
13-4031, and -4033.

1 Nishite-Calara did not receive any presentence incarceration credit
because she was given credit for an unrelated matter which was
consecutive to her sentence imposed on appeal.

3
 STATE v. NISHITE-CALARA
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶10 Nishite-Calara raised two issues in her supplemental brief.
She first contends she could not have stolen the car because she was
incarcerated on May 5, (the date she asserts appears in the charging
documents and on body camera footage). Her argument is unavailing
because other record evidence confirms the car was stolen on May 6, and
she was arrested on May 9 while she was driving the car.

¶11 Nishite-Calara next argues police did not question the
passenger seated behind her after she told them he had a weapon and
forced her to drive the car. The evidence presented at trial, including the
two officers’ testimony and their body camera footage, does not support
her contention. Rather, she told police the passengers were friends helping
her move. Additionally, police did not find any weapons on any of the
passengers.

¶12 In any event, Nishite-Calara raised a similar argument at trial
and cross-examined the officers on that basis. During cross-examination,
she suggested police should have suspected the passengers’ involvement
in the theft based on their observations, such as Nishite-Calara’s
inconsistent statements, her visible frustration when they were released,
and the considerable effort required to tie the trailer to the car. The officers
testified they found no evidence that anyone forced Nishite-Calara to drive
the car. As such, Nishite-Calara is asking us to reweigh the evidence and
assess the officers’ credibility, which this court does not do. See State v.
Brock, 248 Ariz. 583, 592, ¶ 22 (App. 2020) (holding the appellate court does
not “reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses”);
State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353, 357, ¶ 27 (2007) (“[T]he credibility of the
witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are
questions exclusively for the jury.”). Viewing the officers’ testimony and
body camera footage in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s
verdicts, there is substantial evidence to support Nishite-Calara’s
convictions. Fierro, 254 Ariz. at 38, ¶ 2.

¶13 Finally, we note a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral
pronouncement and the sentencing order. The oral pronouncement
incorrectly imposed a $1,970 drug-offense fine and standard fees to Nishite-
Calara for an unrelated matter, but the sentencing order attributed the fees
as to count 3. A.R.S. §§ 13-3407(H), 12-116. Accordingly, we modify the
sentencing order by removing those fees. See State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180,
188, ¶ 38 (2013) (explaining the discrepancy between oral pronouncement
of sentence and written minute entry is generally controlled by oral

4
 STATE v. NISHITE-CALARA
Decision of the Court

pronouncement and reviewing court will correct minute entry if record
clearly identifies intended sentence).

¶14 The record reflects the superior court provided Nishite-
Calara with her constitutional and statutory rights and conducted
proceedings compliant with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Nishite-Calara was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages.
The State presented evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and the sentence
imposed was within the statutory guidelines. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(A), (D),
-1504(A)(1), (B).

CONCLUSION

¶15 We affirm Nishite-Calara’s convictions and sentences as
modified.

¶16 Unless defense counsel identifies an issue appropriate for
submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review, his
obligations regarding Nishite-Calara’s appeal will end after informing her
of the outcome and her future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582,
584–85 (1984). Nishite-Calara has thirty days from the date of this decision
to proceed with an in propria persona petition for review to the Arizona
Supreme Court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21. Upon this Court’s own motion,
we grant Nishite-Calara thirty days from the date of this decision to file an
in propria persona motion for reconsideration.

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

5