State v. Gutierrez
240 Ariz. 460
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Officer stopped Gutierrez after observing erratic driving (unexplained braking and weaving); a drug dog alerted and search found two handguns, ~4+ lbs methamphetamine, ~½ lb heroin, and paraphernalia.
- Gutierrez admitted recent heroin use; urine test positive for heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana.
- Indicted on multiple counts including transportation of methamphetamine for sale (Class 2), transportation of a narcotic for sale, two counts of misconduct involving weapons (for each handgun), paraphernalia, and aggravated DUI; after trial the jury convicted on several counts including methamphetamine transportation and one DUI; acquitted on some charges.
- Superior Court sentenced Gutierrez to concurrent aggravated prison terms; longest was 14 years (ordered as calendar/flat time).
- On appeal, Gutierrez challenged: (1) denial of suppression of evidence from the traffic stop; (2) denial of severance from co-defendant; (3) unit of prosecution for misconduct involving weapons (double jeopardy); (4) alleged judicial vindictiveness based on sentencing comments during a settlement conference; and (5) the court’s imposition of a flat-time (no release-credit) sentence for the methamphetamine conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gutierrez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of traffic stop (suppression) | Stop justified by officer’s observation of erratic driving indicating possible impairment. | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; seizure invalid. | Stop lawful: totality (repeated braking and lane weaving) supported reasonable suspicion. |
| 2. Motion to sever co-defendant's trial | Joinder proper; evidence and defenses not so antagonistic as to require severance. | Defenses were mutually antagonistic; joinder prejudiced Gutierrez. | Denial affirmed; defenses not mutually exclusive and no fundamental prejudice shown. |
| 3. Unit of prosecution for A.R.S. §13-3102(A)(8) (weapons) | Each deadly weapon used/possessed during a felony drug offense may be separately charged. | The statute constitutes a single offense regardless of number of weapons (double jeopardy). | Held each deadly weapon is a separate unit of prosecution; no double jeopardy violation. |
| 4. Judicial vindictiveness from plea conference statements | No presumption of vindictiveness; judge’s later sentence based on trial outcome and jury-found aggravators. | Judge’s promise at settlement conference created presumption of vindictiveness when harsher sentence imposed after trial. | No presumption; record shows no actual vindictiveness and jury-found aggravators justified higher sentence. |
| 5. Flat-time (no release credits) sentence for methamphetamine transport | Statute requires calendar-year (flat-time) sentence; defendant not eligible for release credits. | Court erred by not retaining discretion to allow release credits. | Affirmed: statutory scheme mandates calendar-year/flat-time sentence; no discretion for early-release credits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (pretextual traffic stops valid under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (reasonable suspicion standard under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Livingston, 206 Ariz. 145 (momentary lane deviations insufficient alone for stop)
- State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9 (severance/joinder and prejudice standard)
- State v. Cruz, 137 Ariz. 541 (antagonistic defenses must be mutually exclusive to require severance)
- United States v. Valentine, 706 F.2d 282 (federal courts applying rule of lenity to unit-of-prosecution ambiguity)
- United States v. Alverson, 666 F.2d 341 (statutory wording supports separate offenses per firearm)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (no presumption of vindictiveness from greater post-trial sentence)