State v. Flores
227 Ariz. 509
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Flores was convicted of resisting arrest, a class 6 felony reduced to a misdemeanor after waiving a jury trial.
- The events occurred January 2–3, 2010, involving Flores refusing to produce his ID and making threatening statements about weapons.
- Officers suspected Flores might retrieve weapons and restrained him inside the residence, leading to minor injuries to officers.
- The trial court found the evidence sufficient and sentenced Flores to twelve months of unsupervised probation and anger-management.
- The court of appeals, in an Anders review, concluded the record showed no reversible error and affirmed the conviction.
- Key factual questions centered on whether the police used reasonable force and whether entry into Flores’s home without a warrant was lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of proof for resisting arrest | Flores contends evidence fails to prove all elements. | State contends evidence establishes each element beyond reasonable doubt. | Evidence supports conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Reasonableness of police force | Flores argues force used was excessive/unreasonable. | State asserts force was appropriate and immediately necessary under 13-409. | Police force was reasonable and within the statute; resistance not permitted. |
| Lawful entry into residence without a warrant | Flores asserts unlawful warrantless entry. | State claims exigent circumstances due to potential violence justified entry. | Exigent circumstances justified the entry; no fundamental error in admission. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barraza, 209 Ariz. 441 (App. 2005) (fundamental-error review framework for Anders appeals)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (defining fundamental error and prejudice standard)
- State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289 (1989) (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)
- State v. Yoshida, 195 Ariz. 183 (App. 1998) (limits on when force in resisting arrest is permissible)
- State v. Arredondo, 155 Ariz. 314 (1987) (relates to reasonableness requirement in arrest restraint)
- State v. Cook, 115 Ariz. 188 (1977) (exigency as a basis for warrantless entry in arrest context)
- Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 (1970) ( exigent circumstances concept rooted in federal law)
- United States v. Span, 970 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1992) (resistance right tied to officer conduct and not mere illegality of arrest)