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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CESAR ALEJO CORDOVA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0048

Appeal from the Superior Court in Apache County

No. S0100CR201300191

The Honorable Michael P. Roca, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Michael Valenzuela

Counsel for Appellee

Emily L. Danies, Tucson

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
STATE v. CORDOVA

Decision of the Court

2

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Cesar Alejo Cordova appeals his convictions and sentences

for one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of 

possession of drug paraphernalia. He argues that the trial court erred by 

denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his home 

because the authorizing search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause.

For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In the summer of 2013, the Apache County Sheriff’s Office 

investigated a murder. When deputies arrested the murder suspects, they 

seized a gun that they later learned was one of two that had been stolen 

during a home burglary a few months earlier. After a series of interviews 

with witnesses and suspects in that case, deputies learned that one of the

murder suspects had traded the second stolen gun in a black plastic 

carrying case with Cordova in exchange for two grams of 

methamphetamine. Deputies also learned, however, that Cordova in turn 

had traded the gun with another man. In a follow-up interview with the 

man to whom Cordova had allegedly traded the gun, the man admitted 

that he had the gun and told deputies that he received it from Cordova as 

partial payment for a 1964 Chevrolet pickup truck that he had sold to 

Cordova. After their interview, the man gave the deputies the gun, which 

matched the description and serial number of the second stolen gun. 

¶3 Later that day, one of the deputies applied for a search 

warrant for Cordova’s house, stating generally that he believed the house 

contained evidence of trafficking in stolen property and possession of drugs 

for sale. The supporting six-page affidavit detailed the investigation into 

the murder and burglary, including the many witnesses and suspects the 

deputies interviewed and the recovery of both stolen guns. The affiant 

deputy specifically avowed that in addition to the two guns and the black 

plastic case, several gun cartridges and extra magazines were also reported 

stolen. Further, the affiant avowed that one of the murder suspects traded 

one of the stolen guns and a black plastic carrying case with Cordova for 

drugs, and that Cordova gave the gun as a partial payment on a 1964 

Chevrolet truck. This transaction allegedly occurred at Cordova’s house. 

According to the affidavit, when the deputies recovered the gun from the 

man to whom Cordova traded it, they received only the gun. The man told 

deputies that he had received the gun without any extra magazines and that 

Cordova had told him that was the condition he received it in as well. The 

magistrate issued a search warrant that same day. 
STATE v. CORDOVA

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The deputies then executed the search warrant at Cordova’s 

house. In doing so, deputies found the 1964 Chevrolet pickup truck and the 

truck’s title. Deputies also found methamphetamine, a digital scale, and 

two smoking pipes with marijuana residue. The State charged Cordova 

with possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine) and possession 

of drug paraphernalia.1

¶5 Before trial, Cordova moved to suppress the evidence found 

in his house. He argued that the affidavit supporting the search warrant did 

not establish probable cause and was deficient for three reasons. Cordova 

argued first that the information that the affiant deputy relied on in seeking 

the warrant came from unreliable sources because they were criminals who

had motives to lie. He argued second, that the information contained in the 

affidavit was stale because most of the events mentioned in it were at least 

four months old. Cordova argued finally that the warrant did not specify 

what “ongoing criminal activity” the deputy expected to find at the house. 

¶6 The State opposed the motion, arguing that the information 

in the affidavit was reliable because it came from named sources and was 

verified as the investigation progressed. The State also argued that the 

information was not stale because the deputies followed up with the 

information as soon as it became available to them, and to the extent that 

the warrant was invalid, the trial court should deny the motion to suppress 

under the good faith exception. After hearing oral arguments and taking 

testimony from the affiant deputy, the trial court denied the motion. It 

stated that the affidavit supporting the search warrant “on its face 

establishes probable cause” to search the house. 

¶7 A jury ultimately convicted Cordova of one count of 

possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine) and one count of 

possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court suspended sentencing and 

ordered that Cordova serve concurrent terms of 4 years’ and 3 years’ 

probation, respectively, for each charge. Cordova timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶8 Cordova argues that the trial court erred by denying his 

motion to suppress the evidence found in his home because probable cause 

did not support the warrant and was therefore invalid. We review the trial 

 

1 The State also charged Cordova with two counts relating to 

trafficking of stolen goods, but those charges proceeded under a different 

case number and are not at issue in this appeal. 
STATE v. CORDOVA

Decision of the Court

4

court’s denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion. State v. 

Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 502 ¶ 42, 314 P.3d 1239, 1257 (2013). In doing so, we 

only consider the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view 

the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling. 

State v. Yonkman, 233 Ariz. 369, 371 ¶ 4, 312 P.3d 1135, 1137 (App. 2013). An 

abuse of discretion is “an exercise of discretion which is manifestly 

unreasonable, exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.” 

State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561, 563, 845 P.2d 487, 489 (App. 1992). We review 

de novo, however, whether a warrant complied with the requirements of 

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Davolt, 

207 Ariz. 191, 202 ¶ 21, 84 P.3d 456, 467 (2004). Because the search warrant 

and the affidavit contained information establishing probable cause, the 

trial court did not err by denying Cordova’s motion to suppress the 

evidence found in his house. 

¶9 The United States and Arizona Constitutions require that a 

search warrant may only be issued when supported by probable cause. U.S. 

Const. amend. IV; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 8. The Fourth Amendment prohibits 

the issuance of a general warrant and instead requires that a warrant be 

based on a showing of “probable cause, supported by Oath . . . particularly 

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” 

U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also A.R.S. § 13–3913. In determining whether the 

requisite probable cause exists, the issuing magistrate must “make a 

practical common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set 

forth in the affidavit . . . there is a fair probability that contraband or 

evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 

U.S. 213, 238 (1983). A reviewing court’s duty is to ensure that the 

magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed. 

Id. at 238–39. When police conduct a search pursuant to a search warrant, 

the search is presumed lawful and the defendant bears the burden of 

invalidating it. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 16.2(b). 

¶10 Here, probable cause supported the authorizing search 

warrant because, given all of the circumstances, a fair probability existed 

that contraband or evidence would be found there. At the time that the 

affiant deputy applied for the search warrant, he knew that two guns had 

been stolen, one of which had been recovered when they stopped and 

arrested the murder suspects. The deputy knew that the second gun had 

been traded in its black plastic carrying case to Cordova in exchange for 

two grams of methamphetamine. However, when they recovered the gun 

from the man with whom Cordova subsequently traded it for the pickup 

truck, they recovered only the gun. Nothing in the affidavit states that the 

deputies also recovered the black plastic case from the man. When he gave
STATE v. CORDOVA

Decision of the Court

5

the gun to the deputies, the man told them that he did not receive any extra 

magazines with the gun and that Cordova had told him that was the 

condition in which he received the gun. The man also told deputies that the 

transaction occurred at Cordova’s house. Because deputies had information 

that Cordova received the gun from the murder suspect with the black case, 

however, a fair probability existed that Cordova still had the stolen case in 

his possession and at his house. The black plastic case is evidence of the 

trafficking of stolen property. See A.R.S. § 13–2307(A) (stating that “[a]

person who recklessly traffics in the property of another that has been 

stolen is guilty of trafficking in stolen property in the second degree.”). 

Additionally, although the deputies did not have any specific information 

that the other stolen items—namely the cartridges and magazines—were at 

Cordova’s house, deputies knew that the items were still missing and that 

Cordova had engaged in a transaction with the suspected thief for at least 

two stolen goods. Accordingly, given the totality of these circumstances, 

the trial court had substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed.

2

¶11 Further, because probable cause supported the search 

warrant, the evidence obtained during its execution was not seized illegally. 

Arizona law permits an officer to “seize any property discovered in the 

course of the execution of the warrant, even if the warrant does not 

enumerate that property, under certain circumstances.” A.R.S. 

§ 13–3916(C). One of those circumstances is when the property consists of 

any item or evidence which “tends to show that a particular public offense 

has been committed.” A.R.S. § 13–3912(4). During the execution of the valid 

warrant on Cordova’s home here, the deputies found methamphetamine, a 

digital scale, and pipes with drug residue. These items tend to show that 

particular public offenses, possession of a dangerous drug and 

paraphernalia, has been committed. Thus, the deputies rightfully seized 

those items regardless whether the warrant specifically enumerated them. 

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Cordova’s motion to 

suppress that evidence. 

 

2 Because probable cause supports the search warrant, we need not

address Cordova’s argument on whether the good faith exception applies. 
STATE v. CORDOVA

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.