State v. Reynosa
1 CA-CR 20-0431
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Sep 21, 2021Background
- DPS officer in full uniform stopped Reynoso’s vehicle for a traffic violation and smelled fresh marijuana.
- Officer observed a pocketknife; Reynoso rolled window only two inches, refused to fully open it or exit when ordered, and reached inside the vehicle.
- A physical struggle occurred when officer tried to grab Reynoso’s hand through the window; officer removed and arrested Reynoso.
- Officers searched the vehicle and found marijuana in a pouch in the center console; a forensic test confirmed the substance was marijuana.
- A grand jury indicted Reynoso for possession of marijuana (class 6 felony) and resisting arrest (class 1 misdemeanor); he repeatedly missed hearings and was tried in absentia after being warned the trial could proceed without him.
- Jury convicted on both counts; Reynoso was later sentenced to six months’ jail (time served) and two years’ probation. Counsel filed an Anders brief; the appellate court reviewed for fundamental error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Reynoso's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial in absentia | Trial was proper; Reynoso warned trial could proceed without him | Trial absence invalidates proceedings | Court: Trial in absentia was proper; Reynoso was warned and represented by counsel; no fundamental error |
| Sufficiency of evidence / identification | Officer identified Reynoso as sole occupant; forensic test confirmed marijuana | (Not argued on appeal) Potential misidentification/insufficient proof | Court: Evidence was sufficient to support convictions |
| Search and seizure / evidence admission | Search after arrest lawful; marijuana found in console admissible | (Not raised) Potential unlawful search | Court: Record shows compliance with procedure; no reversible error found |
| Sentencing & appellate rights / counsel duties (Anders) | Sentence within statutory ranges; counsel complied with Anders obligations | Reynoso absconded and delayed sentencing; no arguable appellate issues identified | Court: Sentence lawful; counsel properly filed Anders brief; appellate court found no fundamental error and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel must identify arguable issues; appellate court reviews record for fundamental error)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (Arizona recognition of Anders procedure)
- State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229 (App. 1998) (appellate review views facts in light most favorable to sustaining judgment)
- State v. Bolding, 227 Ariz. 82 (App. 2011) (delay in sentencing after absconding may affect appealability)
- State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509 (App. 2011) (standard of review for fundamental error following Anders filing)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (defense counsel’s post-appeal duties after Anders filing)