State v. Taylor

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ULYSSES MORAN TAYLOR, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0508
FILED 09-23-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2025-111193-001
The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Anne Carmack
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Lindsay Ficklin and Cynthia D. Beck
Counsel for Appellant

STATE v. TAYLOR
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

F A B I A N, Judge:

¶1 Ulysses Taylor appeals his conviction of possession or use of
a narcotic drug (fluorofentanyl). He argues that the superior court erred by
finding the State had presented substantial evidence that the drug he
possessed was a narcotic drug as defined by A.R.S. § 13-3401(20)(aaa). We
affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDCURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In March 2025, police officers searched Taylor and found
several pills in his jacket. They suspected the pills contained fentanyl. After
testing, one of the pills was determined to contain fluorofentanyl.

¶3 Taylor was indicted and the case proceeded to trial on one
count of possession of a narcotic drug.

¶4 At trial, the forensic scientist who tested the pills using a mass
spectrometer testified that one pill contained fluorofentanyl and described
the compound as a fentanyl mimetic because fluorofentanyl “has similar
effects as regular fentanyl.” The scientist explained that the structure of
fluorofentanyl was “pretty much similar” to fentanyl “except for a small
substitution” of fluorine where a hydrogen atom would be in fentanyl. The
scientist opined that because fluorofentanyl was a fentanyl mimetic, it was
a controlled narcotic under Arizona law.

¶5 On cross-examination, the scientist explained that he was not
able to determine the location of the fluorine substitution from the test, just
that the substitution occurred. The scientist stated that the mass
spectrometer testing showed peaks that indicated the components of the
pill, including one indicating the presence of the substituted fluorine atom.
The testing showed that the pill matched a known standard of
fluorofentanyl.

¶6 Taylor moved for a judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule
of Criminal Procedure 20, arguing that the State failed to present evidence

2

STATE v. TAYLOR
Decision of the Court

that he possessed a narcotic fentanyl mimetic as defined by A.R.S.
§ 13-3401(20)(aaa). Taylor argued that, without any evidence where the
fluorine substitution occurred, there was not substantial evidence the
compound he possessed was a narcotic drug as defined by statute. The trial
court denied the motion, finding substantial evidence to warrant conviction
because the State’s witness testified that the substance Taylor possessed,
fluorofentanyl, was a fentanyl mimetic, which is defined as a narcotic drug
under the statute.

¶7 The jury found Taylor guilty of possessing or using a narcotic
drug. Before sentencing, Taylor renewed his Rule 20 motion for a judgment
of acquittal, reiterating the same argument. The trial court again denied his
motion. Taylor was sentenced to six years in prison and he timely appealed
his conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction under Article VI, Section
9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-2101(A)(1), 13-4031, and
13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶8 Taylor argues the trial court erred by denying his Rule 20
motions because A.R.S. § 13-3401(20)(aaa) defines fentanyl mimetics as
narcotic drugs when “derived from fentanyl by any substitution in the
phenethyl group, any substitution in the piperidine ring, any substitution
in the aniline ring, any replacement of the phenyl portion of the phenethyl
group, any replacement of the N-propionyl group or any combination of
the above.” Taylor argues that not all fentanyl mimetics are controlled
narcotic drugs under the statute and therefore the State needed to present
testimony that the fluorofentanyl had a substitution in one of the locations
specified in the statute to be a controlled narcotic drug. He thus asserts that
the scientist’s testimony that fluorofentanyl was a fentanyl mimetic,
without specifying the location of the substitution, was not substantial
evidence to support his conviction.

¶9 The State responds that the scientist’s testimony was
sufficient to establish that fluorofentanyl was a fentanyl mimetic, including
the similarities in chemical nature and effect. The State asserts that Taylor’s
argument goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its sufficiency.

¶10 We review the denial of a Rule 20 motion de novo. State v.
Allen, 253 Ariz. 306, 335 ¶ 69 (2022). We view the evidence in the light most
favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict. Id. “After the close of evidence . . .
the court must enter a judgment of acquittal on any offense charged in an
indictment . . . if there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction.”

3

STATE v. TAYLOR
Decision of the Court

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla
and is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.” State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 134 ¶ 65 (2006) (quoting State v.
Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990)).

¶11 Under A.R.S. § 13-3408(A)(1), a person may not knowingly
possess a narcotic drug, and A.R.S. § 13-3401(20) states:

“Narcotic drugs” means the following, whether of natural or
synthetic origin and any substance neither chemically nor
physically distinguishable from them:

....

(aaa) Fentanyl mimetic substances that are any substances
derived from fentanyl by any substitution in the phenethyl
group, any substitution in the piperidine ring, any
substitution in the aniline ring, any replacement of the phenyl
portion of the phenethyl group, any replacement of the N-
propionyl group or any combination of the above.

¶12 Taylor reads the statute to mean that only fentanyl mimetic
substances with the listed substitutions are narcotic drugs under the statute.
But the statute, by its plain language, defines narcotic drugs as any
substance neither chemically nor physically distinguishable from fentanyl
mimetic substances. Thus, both fentanyl mimetic substances, as defined by
statute, and any substance neither chemically nor physically
distinguishable from them, are “narcotic drugs” under the statute. The
scientist testified that the known standard of fluorofentanyl and the sample
from Taylor’s pill were “the same” and that “all fluorofentanyls are the
same.” From the evidence presented at trial, even without testimony as to
the exact location of the fluorine substitution, a reasonable person could
conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the fluorofentanyl Taylor
possessed met the statutory definition of a fentanyl mimetic. See Ellison, 213
Ariz. at 134 ¶ 65. Therefore, the State presented substantial evidence to
support a conviction for possessing or using a narcotic drug.

4

STATE v. TAYLOR
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶13 We affirm.

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

5