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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JUAN MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0217 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR202100378

The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Rebecca Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Jill L. Evans Attorney at Law, Flagstaff

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined.

1 Judge Peter B. Swann was a sitting member of this court when the matter 

was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective November 28, 

2022. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6, Section 3, of 

FILED 1-17-2023
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Juan Manuel Rodriguez appeals from his convictions for 

transportation of dangerous drugs for sale and misconduct involving 

weapons. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Rodriguez was indicted for transportation of dangerous 

drugs for resale and two counts of misconduct involving weapons in April 

2021. Rodriguez was present at his arraignment. He was present at his 

pretrial conference, three status conferences, and three final management 

conferences, including the last one at which the final date and time for 

Rodriguez’s trial were confirmed. 

¶3 On the morning of trial, the prosecutor and Rodriguez’s 

counsel appeared in court at the scheduled time, but Rodriguez was absent. 

The court asked Rodriguez’s counsel about Rodriguez’s absence and after 

discussion, found Rodriguez’s presence waived. The court and counsel 

proceeded to discuss and resolve outstanding pretrial issues, which took 

approximately twenty minutes. Rodriguez was present with counsel when 

the proceedings resumed with jury selection about an hour later. The jury 

convicted Rodriguez on all counts.

¶4 Rodriguez timely appealed. We have jurisdiction to hear this 

appeal under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona 

Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Sections 12-2101(A)(1), -120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, 

and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 Rodriguez argues that the superior court committed 

reversible error by failing to make a finding of or inquire into the 

voluntariness of his brief absence on the first morning of trial. Because 

Rodriguez did not object to the court’s proceeding with the pretrial 

the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-145, the Chief Justice 

of the Arizona Supreme Court has designated Judge Swann as a judge pro 

tempore in the Court of Appeals for the purpose of participating in the 

resolution of cases assigned to this panel during his term in office and for 

the duration of Administrative Order 2022-162.
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

3

conference in his absence, we review for fundamental error. See State v. 

Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567 ¶ 19 (2005).

¶6 Both the U.S. and Arizona constitutions protect the rights of 

an accused to be present at all stages of criminal proceedings against him. 

See U.S. Const. Amendment six; Ariz. Const. art. 2 §§ 4, 24; see also State v. 

Dann, 205 Ariz. 557, 571–72, ¶¶ 52-53 (2003) (discussing extent of Sixth

Amendment right to be present). A defendant has the right to be present at 

every stage of his trial. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 19.2; State v. Garcia-Contreras, 191 

Ariz. 144, 146 ¶ 8 (1998). But a defendant’s voluntary absence at a 

proceeding waives this right, and a court “may infer that a defendant’s

absence is voluntary if the defendant had actual notice of the date and time 

of the proceeding, notice of the right to be present, and notice that the 

proceeding would go forward in the defendant’s absence.” Ariz. R. Crim. 

P. 9.1.

¶7 Rodriguez was advised that a jury trial may go forward in his 

absence if he failed to appear and that he had the right to be present at all 

future proceedings. He also had actual notice of the date and time of his 

trial at the final management conference in which his trial date and time 

were confirmed. The superior court could thus properly infer that his

absence was voluntary according to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 

9.1. Rodriguez did not request an inquiry into the voluntariness of his 

absence, and the superior court did not err by not so inquiring sua sponte.

Because Rodriguez has not shown the superior court erred when it 

proceeded with the brief pretrial conference in his absence, he has not 

shown error, let alone prejudicial, fundamental error. See State v. Escalante, 

245 Ariz. 135, 142 ¶ 21 (2018) (“[T]he first step in fundamental error review 

is determining whether trial error exists.”).

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm.