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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LUIS RAMIREZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0003 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CR201901001

The Honorable Ted Stuart Reed, Judge

VACATED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By Jefferson Pyper

Counsel for Appellee

DNA People’s Legal Services Inc, Flagstaff

By Adam Cirzan

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 8-31-2023
STATE v. RAMIREZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Vice 

Chief Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Luis Ramirez appeals the superior court’s denial of his 

petition to expunge marijuana-related offense records. For the following

reasons, we vacate the superior court’s order and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2018, a Flagstaff police officer responded to a noise 

complaint at an apartment. Upon the officer’s arrival, an adult male, later 

identified as Ramirez, approached him. Ramirez said he owned the 

apartment and other residents were present. The officer noticed the smell 

of marijuana coming from the apartment. Ramirez admitted he was 

smoking marijuana and allowed the officer to look around the apartment. 

¶3 The officer found marijuana, LSD, and dried mushrooms. 

Ramirez said the substances belonged to him and the mushrooms were 

used as a hallucinogenic drug. The officer found marijuana in multiple 

containers with different names written on all of them. Ramirez admitted 

he was selling the drugs. Two residents at the apartment said Ramirez had 

sold drugs to them. The officer arrested Ramirez.

¶4 In September 2019, Ramirez waived a preliminary hearing

and entered a plea agreement. In the agreement, Ramirez pled guilty to one 

count of solicitation to possess marijuana for sale, a Class 6 un-designated

felony, in violation of A.R.S. Sections 13-3405(A)(2), 13-3401, 13-1002, 13-

603, 13-604, 13-701, 13-702, 13-707, 13-801, 13-802, 13-804, 13-804.01, 13-901, 

13-902.

¶5 In October 2022, Ramirez petitioned to expunge his offense 

under Section 36-2862. The superior court denied the petition stating that 

the offense was not eligible for expungement. Ramirez appealed. We have 

jurisdiction. Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 

13-4031, -4033(A)(3), 36-2862(F).
STATE v. RAMIREZ

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review the denial of a petition for expungement for an 

abuse of discretion. State v. Hall, 234 Ariz. 374, 375, ¶ 3 (App. 2014). The 

State argued in its response to Ramirez’s petition that “sales offenses are 

not included in the list of offenses that are eligible for expungement” under 

Section 36-2862(A).

¶7 This Court recently concluded that “for sale” offenses are 

included within the expungement statute. State v. Sorensen, ___ Ariz. ___, 

___, ¶ 12, 531 P.3d 378, 382 (App. 2023); A.R.S. § 36-2862(A)(1). Notably, in 

Sorensen the State agreed that the expungement statute applies to “salerelated marijuana offenses.” Sorensen, ___ Ariz at ___, ¶¶ 6, 11, 531 P.3d at

380–81. Although we are not “absolutely bound by prior Court of Appeals 

decisions, the principle of Stare decisis and the need for stability in the law”

require us to consider this Court’s previous decisions “as highly persuasive 

and binding, unless we are convinced that the prior decisions are based 

upon clearly erroneous principles, or conditions have changed so as to 

render these prior decisions inapplicable.” Castillo v. Indus. Comm’n, 21 

Ariz. App. 465, 471 (1974). We see no reason that would warrant departure 

from Sorensen. Therefore, the superior court erred when it determined that 

marijuana sales offenses are per se ineligible for expungement.

¶8 The State argues that we must remand to the superior court 

for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the offense is eligible. Ramirez 

argues no hearing is necessary because, according to Sorensen, Ramirez’s 

offense is eligible under the statute. The court erred by failing to make 

statutorily required findings of fact when it denied Ramirez’s petition. See 

A.R.S. § 36-2862(B)(4) (“The court shall issue a signed order or minute entry 

granting or denying the petition in which it makes findings of fact and 

conclusions of law.”); see also State v. Santillanes, ___ Ariz. ___, ___, ¶¶ 35–

36, 522 P.3d 691, 698–99 (App. 2022) (vacating the superior court’s 

expungement order for failure to include findings of fact and conclusions 

of law). But we leave for the superior court to determine if an evidentiary 

hearing is necessary to decide whether the underlying facts of Ramirez’s

offense warrant expungement under the statute.
STATE v. RAMIREZ

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶9 We vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision.