State v. Wright, 1 CA-CR 15-0419

Late-night patrol: Officer Baynes stopped Amar Wright for riding a bicycle without a required front lamp.
Wright told Baynes his identification was in a black nylon bag, then handed the bag to Baynes without being asked.
Baynes unzipped the bag and immediately observed a glass meth pipe in plain view; Wright was arrested, Mirandized, and a subsequent search of his person produced 48.4 mg of methamphetamine.
Wright moved to suppress evidence, arguing he did not consent to the bag search; the trial court denied the motion and a jury convicted him of possession/use of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia.
On appeal Wright challenged (1) denial of suppression (lack of consent) and (2) the trial court’s handling of two pro per pretrial motions (rehearing on suppression and motion to change counsel).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences.

Issue	Wright's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless search of Wright’s bag was constitutional (consent)	Wright contended he did not consent; handing the bag was ambiguous and did not authorize a search	Officer Baynes testified Wright said ID was in the bag and handed it over voluntarily; consent can be shown by words and conduct	Court held Wright voluntarily consented to the search; suppression denial affirmed
Whether trial court erred by failing to explain denial of pro per motion for rehearing	Wright argued lack of on-the-record reasoning impaired appellate review of denial	Trial court is not required to rule on such motions or explain denials	Court held no error; no explanation required
Whether trial court abused discretion by failing to adequately inquire into pro per motion to change counsel	Wright claimed counsel failed to follow up on a material witness and had an irreconcilable conflict	Record showed disagreements were strategic, counsel/investigator had communicated with Wright; motion was renewed late and denied as untimely	Court held no abuse of discretion; disagreement did not rise to irreconcilable conflict; denial affirmed
Whether trial court shifted burden to Wright on consent issue	Wright argued the court improperly placed burden on him to prove consent equivocal	Court’s comments simply reflected weighing the evidence presented at suppression hearing	Court found no improper burden shift

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing custodial Miranda warnings requirement)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent to search must be voluntary, not coerced)
State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299 (warrantless searches per se unreasonable unless exception applies; consent burden on State)
State v. Paredes, 167 Ariz. 609 (voluntariness of consent is a fact question determined from totality of circumstances)
State v. Tucker, 118 Ariz. 76 (consent may be established by conduct as well as words)
State v. DeCamp, 197 Ariz. 36 (plain-view seizure permitted when officer authorized to be where he is)
State v. Carlson, 237 Ariz. 381 (trial court not required to hear or explain rulings on pro per motions)
State v. Cromwell, 211 Ariz. 181 (standard for appointing new counsel; irreconcilable conflict required)
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389 (appellate review standard for suppression rulings)