State v. Flores

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

FABIAN FLORES, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0279
FILED 03-03-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2024-106711-001
The Honorable Christina Henderson, 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 Jesse Finn Turner
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. FLORES
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1 Fabian Flores (“Flores”) appeals his convictions and sentences
for misconduct involving weapons. Counsel for Flores filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
certifying that, after diligently searching the record, counsel found no
arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Counsel asks this court to
search the record for arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988);
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Flores had an opportunity
to file a supplemental brief; he did not do so. After independently
reviewing the record, we affirm Flores’ convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to
upholding the jury’s verdicts. See State v. Rios, 255 Ariz. 124, 127 ¶ 2 (App.
2023).

¶3 On February 10, 2024, Glendale police officers witnessed
Flores driving recklessly through a parking lot. Officers approached his
vehicle from the driver and passenger sides and asked whether he had any
weapons in the vehicle. Flores replied that he had no weapons. But the
officer on the passenger’s side saw a firearm in a beer box on the passenger
seat. The officer seized the firearm, and Flores began making statements
that the firearm was neither stolen nor loaded. Flores was subsequently
arrested, during which he told the officers, “I’m a felon.”

¶4 The State charged Flores with misconduct involving weapons
based on being a prohibited possessor (count 1) and misconduct involving
weapons based on Flores’ response to officers about not possessing a
weapon (count 2). See A.R.S. §§ 13-3102(A)(1)(b), (A)(4), (M). The State also
alleged that Flores had two prior felonies.

¶5 At a preliminary hearing, Flores was present and pleaded not
guilty. The court informed Flores that he must be present at all hearings.
Otherwise, a bench warrant could be issued, and the State could try him in

2
 STATE v. FLORES
Decision of the Court

absentia. When asked if he understood, Flores replied, “I won’t miss any
court dates. I understand clearly.” That same day, Flores signed a final
release order, outlining his court dates and the importance of attending all
hearings. At a settlement conference, the court again notified Flores that he
must attend all court proceedings, or he could be tried in absentia.

¶6 Flores was present at an April 22 trial setting conference when
the court set trial for May 1, 2025. But starting on April 23, 2025, Flores
stopped appearing in court. When Flores did not appear on the first day of
trial and his attorney could not contact him, the court issued a bench
warrant and proceeded with trial. Flores remained absent throughout trial.

¶7 During trial, a detective testified that he and his partner saw
a firearm in a beer box in Flores’s vehicle after Flores failed to truthfully
notify them of its presence. The detective also testified about statements
Flores made during his arrest, including admitting he was a “convicted
felon.” The State introduced a redacted minute entry from 2016 stating
Flores previously pleaded guilty to multiple felonies and a Department of
Corrections Rehabilitation & Reentry “master record file” stating he
completed his sentence in 2024. A detective identified Flores as the
individual referenced in the documents. Additionally, the State provided
a certified copy of a document from the Clerk of the Superior Court stating
a search found no record that Flores had applied to restore his firearm
rights.

¶8 The jury found Flores guilty on both counts of misconduct
involving weapons. Four days after trial, police arrested Flores. At his
partial bond forfeiture and partial bond exoneration hearing, Flores
claimed he was absent from trial because he did not have a phone to verify
his court dates or arrange travel to the courthouse.

¶9 Flores was in custody and present for his sentencing and trial
on priors. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Flores had
two historical prior felonies that occurred within ten years of the current
charges. On count 1, the court sentenced Flores to ten years in the Arizona
Department of Corrections Rehabilitation & Reentry, with 56 days credit
for presentence incarceration. On count 2, the court sentenced Flores to 56
days in jail to run concurrently with count 1.

¶10 Flores timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, 13-4033(A)(1).

3
 STATE v. FLORES
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶11 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
independently reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104
Ariz. at 300. We find none.

¶12 Flores was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the
proceedings. A defendant’s failure to appear may voluntarily waive his
presence “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. The
court does not abuse its discretion in proceeding with a trial in absentia
where a defendant fails to appear at trial after being properly notified. See
State v. Sanderson, 182 Ariz. 534, 541 (App. 1995). Here, Flores signed a
release order outlining his court dates and times and warning him of the
consequences for not appearing. The court gave these same warnings at his
preliminary hearing and settlement conference, to which he responded, “I
won’t miss any court dates. I understand clearly.” After police arrested
Flores post-trial, he told the court he missed trial because he did not have a
phone to verify court dates or arrange a ride to court. But he was aware of
his trial date because he was present when the court set it. The court did
not abuse its discretion in finding that Flores voluntarily waived his
presence and therefore could be tried in absentia.

¶13 The record reflects that the superior court afforded Flores his
constitutional and statutory rights and conducted the proceedings
consistent with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The evidence at
trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and the court’s sentences.
The sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit
given for presentence incarceration. See A.R.S. § 13-703(J) (ten-year
presumptive sentence). We find no error.

4
 STATE v. FLORES
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm Flores’ convictions and sentences. With the filing
of this decision, defense counsel’s obligation to represent Flores in this
appeal will end after informing Flores of the outcome and his future
options, unless counsel discovers an issue appropriate for a petition for
review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582,
584–85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, Flores has 30 days from the date
of this decision to proceed with a pro se motion for reconsideration or
petition for review.

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

5