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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GILBERT DOMINGUEZ, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0446 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-135817-001 

The Honorable Jacki Ireland, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee 

The Heath Law Firm, PLLC, Mesa

By Mark Heath

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 5-24-2018
STATE v. DOMINGUEZ

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell

joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Gilbert Dominguez appeals his convictions of possession or 

use of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine) and possession of drug 

paraphernalia and the resulting sentences. Dominguez’s counsel filed a 

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State 

v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the 

record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. 

Dominguez was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did 

not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for arguable issues. 

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 

(App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Dominguez’s 

convictions and sentences. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In August 2015, a Phoenix police officer began following 

Dominguez after he observed him speeding and making several turns in a 

residential neighborhood in a possible attempt to evade the officer.

Eventually, Dominguez parked his vehicle in a residential driveway. When 

the officer arrived, Dominguez was already outside the vehicle, and the 

officer observed him walk around from the front right-side of the vehicle. 

As the officer got out of his vehicle, he heard a metallic clanking sound near 

the passenger side of the car and later asked another officer to search the 

area where he heard the noise. The officer found a small metallic box with 

five bags of methamphetamine inside. The officers also searched 

Dominguez’s vehicle and found multiple small plastic bags commonly 

used to hold drugs and a digital scale commonly used to weigh drugs.

¶3 Dominguez was charged with one count each of possession 

or use of a dangerous drug, a class 4 felony, (“Count One”) and possession 

of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony (“Count Two”). Prior to trial, 

Dominguez moved to suppress the evidence obtained following the stop. 

The superior court denied the motion, finding the encounter between 
STATE v. DOMINGUEZ

Decision of the Court

3 

Dominguez and the officer was consensual and, moreover, the officer had 

reasonable suspicion to stop Dominguez.

¶4 A three-day jury trial was held. After the State presented its 

case, Dominguez moved for acquittal, which the superior court denied. A 

passenger who was in the vehicle during the stop testified for the defense. 

The witness testified that the box containing methamphetamine was hers, 

that she threw the box out the window, and that the drugs, bags, and scale 

were also hers, despite previously denying the drugs belonged to her. 

Despite the witness’s testimony, the jury convicted Dominguez on both 

counts.

¶5 Dominguez was released on his own recognizance while 

awaiting trial. While on release, Dominguez committed two additional 

felonies, both burglary in the third degree, a class 4 felony, on two separate 

dates. Dominguez’s sentencing on the drug possession and drug 

paraphernalia charges was continued pending resolution of the burglary 

charges. In May 2017, Dominguez pled guilty to both of the new charges. 

As part of the plea agreements, Dominguez admitted he had two prior 

felony convictions.

¶6 Prior to the sentencing hearing, Dominguez moved twice for 

new counsel, which the superior court granted. Dominguez also moved to 

suspend his guilty verdict and reinstate his release, and moved for a 

mistrial. Dominguez filed both motions pro se, but was represented by 

counsel when he filed the motions so the superior court did not rule on 

either. After taking judicial notice of Dominguez’s prior felony convictions 

based on his plea agreements, the superior court sentenced Dominguez to

12 years’ imprisonment on Count One and 4.5 years’ imprisonment on 

Count Two, with 382 days’ presentence incarceration credit. The sentences 

were to run concurrent with each other and the sentences imposed 

pursuant to the plea agreements. Dominguez timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶7 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have 

reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We 

find none. 

¶8 Dominguez was present and represented by counsel at all 

stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects the superior court 

afforded Dominguez all his constitutional and statutory rights, and the 

proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of 
STATE v. DOMINGUEZ

Decision of the Court

4 

Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, 

and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient 

to support the jury’s verdicts. Dominguez’s sentences fall within the range 

prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration. 

CONCLUSION

¶9 Dominguez’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. After 

the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to

Dominguez’s representation in this appeal will end after informing

Dominguez of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless 

counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona 

Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584–85 (1984).