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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MICHAEL RUDY RAMOS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0604 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201700229

The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Nicholas Chapman-Hushek

Counsel for Appellee

Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 9-27-2018
STATE v. RAMOS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Michael Rudy Ramos timely appeals his convictions and 

sentences for possession of dangerous drugs for sale, possession of narcotic 

drugs, misconduct involving weapons, possession of marijuana, and two 

counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. He argues the jury had 

insufficient evidence to find him guilty of the charges. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Highway Patrol Detectives Cortez and Stopke were on patrol

when they saw a car swerve outside of its lane. Suspecting the driver was 

under the influence, the detectives conducted a traffic stop. 

¶3 Detective Cortez approached the car and asked Ramos, the 

driver, if he had any contraband—such as guns, methamphetamine, or 

marijuana—inside the car. Ramos appeared to be nervous, looking around

the interior of the car and towards the passenger before replying that there 

were no drugs or guns in the car. Detective Cortez asked Ramos to exit the 

car and began to issue him a warning for unsafe lane usage. 

¶4 Meanwhile, Detective Stopke asked the passenger to exit the 

car and asked her for identification. She stated she did not have her

identification, but explained she had her cousin’s identification in her 

purse, which she provided to the Detective. He relayed this information to 

Detective Cortez, who went over to the car to speak with her. As Detective 

Cortez questioned the passenger, she asked if she could smoke a cigarette.

He allowed her to enter the car to retrieve a lighter. When she opened the 

door, Detective Cortez smelled an odor of marijuana coming from inside 

the car. Detective Cortez asked Ramos and the passenger if either of them

had a medical marijuana card. Ramos and the passenger both said they did 

not, and Ramos stated there was no marijuana in the car. Based on the odor 

of marijuana and Ramos’ and the passenger’s statements that they did not 
STATE v. RAMOS

Decision of the Court

3

have a medical marijuana card, Detective Cortez determined there was 

probable cause to search the car. 

¶5 In searching the car, Detective Cortez found a 

methamphetamine pipe in the passenger seat-back pocket. He also found a 

men’s personal hygiene bag under a pile of clothes on the backseat. Inside 

the bag were men’s razors, deodorant, a prescription pill bottle with Ramos’

name on it, and a cardboard box that was held shut by a hair tie. When he 

opened the cardboard box, Detective Cortez found what appeared to be an 

ounce of methamphetamine, some marijuana, a small amount of cocaine, a

digital scale, and several sandwich bags, one of which had the corners cut 

off. Detective Stopke also searched the car and found a gun wedged 

between the driver’s seat and the center console. 

¶6 Ramos was indicted on one count of possession of dangerous 

drugs for sale (methamphetamine), one count of possession of narcotic 

drugs for sale (cocaine), one count of possession of marijuana, one count of

misconduct involving weapons (possessing a deadly weapon during the 

commission of a felony), and two counts of possession of drug 

paraphernalia.

1

¶7 At trial, Detectives Cortez and Stopke testified that they have

received training regarding the sale of drugs and items typically used in the 

sale of drugs, including methamphetamine. Detective Stopke also testified 

that possession of an ounce of methamphetamine is “indicative of someone 

who is in the business of selling methamphetamine.” Detective Stopke 

testified that in his experience, people who are in the business of selling 

methamphetamine carry firearms to protect themselves. Detective Cortez 

identified the pipe found in the car as a methamphetamine pipe and 

testified that in drug sales cases, he occasionally finds pipes because 

“sometimes people buy drugs and they want to use right there.” He also 

said that people in the business of selling drugs typically use paraphernalia 

such as scales and bags. He testified that when corners are cut off a plastic 

bag, the plastic corners are typically used as additional containers for drug

 

1 Ramos was originally indicted on two counts of misconduct involving 

weapons (counts 3 and 4). Prior to trial, the superior court severed count 3 

and renumbered the remaining counts. At trial, the State moved to dismiss 

the “for sale” allegation in the count of possession of narcotic drugs for sale, 

without objection. The court granted the State’s oral motion and dismissed 

the “for sale” allegation with prejudice.
STATE v. RAMOS

Decision of the Court

4

sales. Finally, Detective Cortez testified that a primary indicator of a drug 

sales verses a simple possession case is the quantity of drugs: the larger the 

amount, the more likely that it is a sales case. 

¶8 A forensic scientist tested the substances from Ramos’ car and

determined that the substances were .53 grams of marijuana, 5.02 grams of 

cocaine, and 28.4 grams of methamphetamine. 

¶9 A jury found Ramos guilty on all six counts. After sentencing, 

he filed a timely notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

¶10 As the sole issue on appeal, Ramos contends that his 

convictions should be reversed because the jury lacked sufficient evidence 

to find him guilty. We review claims of sufficiency of the evidence de novo. 

State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). In reviewing the sufficiency of 

the evidence, this court examines the evidence in the light most favorable 

to sustaining the verdict and resolves all reasonable inferences against the 

defendant. State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89 (1997).

¶11 Ramos first challenges his convictions for sufficiency of the 

evidence for possession of narcotic drugs, possession of marijuana, and 

possession of drug paraphernalia. Ramos focuses on the fact that the box 

containing the drugs was held shut by a hair tie and was within reach of 

both him and the passenger. Additionally, he cites the absence of 

fingerprints on the box and any admissions regarding who the box 

belonged to. In order to prove the defendant possessed drugs and 

paraphernalia, the State must prove, among other things, “either actual 

physical possession or constructive possession with actual knowledge of 

the presence of the . . . substance.” State v. Teagle, 217 Ariz. 17, 27, ¶ 41 (App. 

2007). “Constructive possession can be established by showing that the 

accused exercised dominion and control over the drug itself, or the location 

in which the substance was found.” Id. Exclusive, immediate, and personal 

possession of drugs is not necessary to establish constructive possession. 

State v. Carroll, 111 Ariz. 216, 218 (1974). Possession may be sole or joint and 

two or more persons may have joint possession of drugs if they share actual 

or constructive possession. See State v. Saiz, 106 Ariz. 352, 355 (1970). The 

presence of the passenger and her belongings in Ramos’ car does not 

diminish his guilt—exclusive possession of the drugs is not required. Thus, 

there was sufficient evidence that Ramos constructively possessed the 

drugs.
STATE v. RAMOS

Decision of the Court

5

¶12 Ramos next challenges his conviction for possession of 

dangerous drugs for sale, arguing there was insufficient evidence that he 

possessed the methamphetamine found in the car with intent to sell. Ramos

contends, because the amount of methamphetamine in the car could have 

been possessed for personal use, the evidence was insufficient to permit the 

jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was possessed for sale. We 

disagree. 

¶13 The State presented testimony from two officers

knowledgeable in drug sales. A police officer’s expert testimony concerning 

whether drugs were possessed for sale is admissible. State v. Carreon, 151 

Ariz. 615, 617 (App. 1986). Both officers testified that the quantity of and 

paraphernalia found with the methamphetamine was indicative of 

possession for sale. Thus, the officers’ testimony in this case was sufficient 

to permit a finding that the methamphetamine was possessed for sale. 

¶14 Finally, Ramos argues there was insufficient evidence to 

support his conviction for misconduct involving weapons. A person 

commits misconduct involving weapons if he knowingly uses or possesses 

a deadly weapon during the commission of any felony drug offense. A.R.S. 

§ 13-3102(A)(8). In addition to proving possession of the weapon, “[t]he 

state must prove that the defendant intended to use or could have used the 

weapon to further the felony drug offense underlying the weapons 

misconduct charge.” State v. Petrak, 198 Ariz. 260, 266, ¶ 19 (App. 2000)

(emphasis added). Ramos contends that rather than be used in furtherance 

of a drug offense, the gun could have been possessed “independently for

self-defense.” Factors tending to show a weapon could be used to facilitate 

a drug offense include the proximity and accessibility of the weapon to the 

defendant and to the site of the drug offense. Id. Here, Ramos’ gun was 

within his immediate reach at the time he had methamphetamine, cocaine, 

and marijuana in his car. Given this evidence, the jury could have 

reasonably found that Ramos used, intended to use, or could have used the 

gun to further the underlying drug offenses. 

¶15 The evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to 

conclude that Ramos constructively possessed the 28 grams of 

methamphetamine for sale, and that he possessed the marijuana, cocaine, 

and paraphernalia found in his car. On this record, the jury also had 

sufficient evidence to find Ramos guilty of misconduct involving weapons.
STATE v. RAMOS

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶16 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the convictions and 

sentences.