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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JORGE CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0178

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2007-176100-001 DT

The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Paul J. Prato

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Donn Kessler joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Jorge Carlos Rodriguez appeals the trial court’s ruling that 

inmate restraining devices were necessary during his trial. Rodriguez’s 

counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that 

counsel found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record 

for fundamental error. Rodriguez has filed a supplemental brief in propria 

persona arguing that (1) no valid reason existed to justify the use of 

restraining devices, (2) the trial court impermissibly shifted the burden of 

proof to him, and (3) he was unable to fully participate in his trial because 

of the adverse psychological effects the restraints had on him. After 

reviewing the record, we affirm Rodriguez’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Rodriguez. See State 

v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998).

¶3 The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office required Rodriguez to 

wear leg braces and a remotely activated custody and control (“RACC”) 

stun-belt during his trial. On the fourth day of his five-day trial, Rodriguez

moved to “preclude leg braces and [the] electric security back harness 

during trial.” Rodriguez feared that his leg braces would get stuck in the 

locked position and that the jury would notice his restraints. Rodriguez 

stated that he focused more on his restraints than his trial because an officer 

told him of an instance when a RACC belt accidently activated. When the 

trial court asked Rodriguez why he wanted the restraints off, he responded 

that he felt uncomfortable walking with the leg braces because when they

lock up he has to bend down to unlock them. The trial court denied the 

motion but ordered that Rodriguez take the witness stand outside the 

presence of the jury. After the trial court denied the motion, neither 

Rodriguez nor his trial attorney brought up the restraints. 
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The jury found Rodriguez guilty of five counts of child 

molestation; two counts of sexual conduct with a minor; one count of public 

sexual indecency to a minor; and one count of furnishing obscene or 

harmful items to a minor. Rodriguez appealed his convictions and 

sentences to this Court. Rodriguez argued that the trial court erred by 

requiring him to wear the leg braces and RACC belt. We affirmed 

Rodriguez’s convictions and sentences but remanded for the trial court to 

hold a Deck1 hearing to determine retrospectively the appropriateness of the 

restraining devices and whether the use of the devices interfered with 

Rodriguez’s right to a fair trial. We also remanded for resentencing on two 

counts for the trial court to determine whether consecutive sentences were 

warranted.

¶5 At the Deck hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office court security supervisor, Rodriguez’s 

trial attorney, and Rodriguez. The security supervisor explained that he 

looks at multiple factors when making an individual risk assessment to 

determine whether an inmate needs to wear restraints at trial. Specific to 

Rodriguez, the security supervisor looked at the type of charges, the 

possibility of Rodriguez facing multiple life sentences, past criminal 

history, and the layout of the courtroom. The security supervisor also noted 

Rodriguez’s manslaughter conviction four years before the current charges. 

Of particular concern was the trial courtroom’s layout. Because the 

courtroom was smaller and had no holding cell, security officers would not 

have as much time to respond to a problem. The security supervisor 

concluded that had the hearing occurred before the trial, he would have 

recommended that Rodriguez wear both the leg braces and the RACC belt 

during trial. 

¶6 Rodriguez’s trial attorney worried that a juror could have 

seen the restraints because the jury came close to Rodriguez when entering 

and leaving the courtroom. He testified, however, that had any juror seen 

or heard the leg braces or RACC belt he would have brought it to the court’s 

attention. The trial attorney did not bring any issues to the trial court’s 

attention after the court denied Rodriguez’s motion to preclude the 

restraints.

¶7 According to Rodriguez, throughout the entirety of trial he 

felt like he could not contribute to his defense because he feared that the 

jury would see his restraints or that the RACC belt would accidently shock 

him. Rodriguez explained that he wanted to talk to his attorney during jury 

 

1 Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005).
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

4

selection but that he was afraid to even pick up a pen because he did not 

know what would trigger the security officer to activate the RACC belt. 

Rodriguez admitted to taking notes during the trial but no longer had them 

at the time of the Deck hearing, however. Rodriguez stated that during his 

testimony at trial, he was sweating profusely because he was nervous that 

the jury would notice his restraints. No juror questioned whether restraints 

were used and Rodriguez did not raise the issue again after the trial court 

denied his motion. 

¶8 After the Deck hearing, the trial court noted that the State had 

satisfied its burden under the totality of the circumstances to prove that the 

restraints were necessary. The trial court specifically noted that Rodriguez 

faced a life sentence, that the layout of the courtroom required additional 

precautions, and that Rodriguez’s charges were serious enough to warrant 

safety concerns. The trial court accepted as true Rodriguez’s testimony that 

he was fearful of the RACC belt, but also found that Rodriguez was able to 

meaningfully communicate with his attorney. The court further determined 

that even if the restraints were not necessary, wearing the restraints did not 

prejudice Rodriguez because no evidence showed that the restraints 

affected the trial or the jury. 

¶9 The trial court then addressed the sentencing error. The trial 

court resentenced the two counts to run concurrently with another count. 

Rodriguez timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶10 We review the record in connection to the Deck hearing for 

reversible error. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45 ¶ 3, 270 P.3d 870, 872 

(App. 2012). Counsel for Rodriguez has advised this Court that after a 

diligent search of the entire record, counsel has found no arguable question 

of law. However, in his supplemental brief, Rodriguez argues that the trial 

court erred by finding the use of restraints necessary, that the burden of 

proof was impermissibly shifted to him to prove that he was prejudiced, 

and that the restraints affected his ability to fully participate in his trial.

¶11 Matters of courtroom security and safety are left to the trial 

court’s discretion. State v. Cruz, 218 Ariz. 149, 168 ¶ 118, 181 P.3d 196, 215 

(2008). A trial court’s security decision will not be overturned unless an 

abuse of discretion occurs. Id. But the court “must have grounds for 

ordering restraints and should not simply defer to the prosecutor’s request, 

a sheriff’s department’s policy, or security personnel’s preference for the 

use of restraints.” Id. at ¶ 119.
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

5

¶12 Here, the trial court held a Deck hearing to retrospectively 

determine whether the restraining devices were necessary. In making its 

determination, the court relied on the security supervisor’s individual risk 

assessment, the layout of the courtroom, the prior manslaughter conviction, 

and the potential that Rodriguez would have to serve multiple life 

sentences. The trial court found that under these specific facts, the use of 

both restraining devices was appropriate. The record supports those 

findings. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that 

the use of both restraints were necessary at trial.

¶13 Rodriguez next argues that the burden of proof was 

improperly shifted to him during the Deck hearing. The court specifically 

found, however, that the State had and met its burden. The court explained 

that the State needed to show that case-specific reasons existed to warrant 

the use of both restraining devices. The trial court had to determine if the 

restraints were necessary, and if not necessary, if Rodriguez was 

prejudiced. That the trial court heard testimony about whether Rodriguez 

was prejudiced did not impermissibly shift the State’s burden to prove that 

the restraints were necessary in this situation. 

¶14 Rodriguez also contends that the restraints caused him such 

fear that he was unable to concentrate on or participate in his trial. 

Rodriguez relies on Gonzalez v. Pilfer, 341 F.3d 897, 901 (9th Cir. 2003) to 

support his argument that the use of RACC belts prevents a defendant from 

effectively communicating with his trial attorney. Here, the trial court 

specifically found that the restraining devices did not impede Rodriguez’s 

ability to communicate with his trial attorney. Arizona law does not require 

the trial court to first pursue less restrictive alternatives. See State v. Benson, 

232 Ariz. 452, 461–62 ¶¶ 31–32, 307 P.3d 19, 28–29 (2013). Rodriguez’s trial 

attorney never brought to the trial court’s attention any issue about lack of 

communication. Although Rodriguez stated that he was too nervous to pick 

up a pen, he admitted that he took notes during the trial. Moreover, when 

the trial court asked Rodriguez why he wanted the restraints removed he 

only brought up the issue about whether the jurors might have noticed the 

restraints, not that he was unable to effectively communicate with his trial 

attorney. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining 

that Rodriguez was not denied a fair trial. 

¶15 Finally, Rodriguez appeals from the trial court’s resentencing 

order but failed to argue any error in his supplemental brief. We have 

reviewed the record for reversible error and find none.
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ

Decision of the Court

6

¶16 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform

Rodriguez of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has 

no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue 

appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85, 684 P.2d 154, 156–57 

(1984). Rodriguez shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition 

for review.

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.