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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MAURICIO ALONZO VASQUEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0351

 1 CA-CR 19-0356

 (Consolidated)

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2018-121280-001, CR2017-150696-001

The Honorable Marvin L. Davis, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Nicholas Chapman-Hushek

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Robert W. Doyle

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 6-25-2020
STATE v. VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma1 delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Mauricio Vasquez appeals from his convictions 

and sentences, arguing the superior court erred in failing to sanction the 

State more harshly for misconduct in obtaining his fingerprints after trial 

but before sentencing. Because Vasquez has shown no error, his convictions 

and sentences are affirmed. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In March 2019, a jury convicted Vasquez of two counts of 

aggravated assault, two counts of resisting arrest and one count of 

disorderly conduct, arising from separate altercations with law 

enforcement in November 2017 and April 2018. The court set an 

aggravation and sentencing hearing for April 2019. Two days before the 

hearing, the State obtained Vasquez’s fingerprints, without defense 

counsel’s knowledge or consent, for use in the aggravation phase.

¶3 Vasquez moved to sanction the State for violating various of 

his constitutional rights, and for ignoring the rule-based directive that he 

had a right to have counsel present when he was fingerprinted. See Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 15.2(a) (2020).

2 The court found his fingerprints were obtained in 

violation of Rule 15.2(a), suppressed the evidence, and set the aggravation 

hearing for one week later.

¶4 The State then sought and obtained another set of fingerprints 

from Vasquez. The State used the new fingerprints at the aggravation and 

sentencing hearing to link Vasquez to his prior criminal convictions. After 

1 Judge Samuel A. Thumma replaces the Honorable Kenton D. Jones, who 

was originally assigned to this panel. Judge Thumma has read the briefs 

and reviewed the record.

2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
STATE v. VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

3

finding Vasquez had two prior historical felony convictions, the court 

sentenced him as a non-dangerous but repetitive offender to mitigated 

concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was seven years, followed by 

a two-year probation grant, and gave him credit for 521 days of presentence 

incarceration. This court has jurisdiction over Vasquez’ timely appeal 

pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona 

Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶5 At the written request of the State made after a charge is filed, 

“the defendant must, in connection with the particular offense with which 

the defendant is charged[,] be fingerprinted.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.2(a)(1)(C). 

However, “[t]he defendant is entitled to have counsel present when the 

State takes [such] evidence.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.2(a)(2). Failure to follow 

these rules is sanctionable. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.7(b).

¶6 Vasquez argues the court abused its discretion in failing to 

impose a more “meaningful” sanction against the State for taking his 

fingerprints contrary to established procedures. See State v. Meza, 203 Ariz. 

50, 55 ¶ 19 (App. 2002). The superior court has considerable discretion in 

addressing a request for sanctions. Meza, 203 Ariz. at 55 ¶ 19. Sanction 

orders will be affirmed unless “no reasonable judge would have reached 

the same result under the circumstances,” Naranjo, 234 Ariz. at 24 ¶ 29 

(citation omitted), and the defendant is prejudiced as a result, Delgado, 174 

Ariz. at 256 (citations omitted).

¶7 In addressing sanctions, “courts should consider ‘the vitality 

of the evidence to the proponent’s case; the degree to which the evidence or 

the sanctionable conduct has been prejudicial to the opposing party; 

whether the sanctionable conduct was willful or motivated by bad faith; 

and whether a less stringent sanction would suffice.’” State v. Ramos, 239 

Ariz. 501, 504 ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (quoting Meza, 203 Ariz. at 57 ¶ 32); see also 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.7(c). Vasquez argues these factors weigh in favor of 

precluding the State from alleging prior felony convictions or ever using his

fingerprints against him. Vasquez’ argument fails for several reasons.

¶8 First, the fingerprints were not vital to prove the existence of 

Vasquez’s historical prior felony convictions. To prove a prior conviction, 

the State need only show that a prior conviction exists, and that the crime 

was committed by the defendant. State v. Cons, 208 Ariz. 409, 415 ¶¶ 15-16

(App. 2004). Although fingerprint evidence is one way to do so, the State 

also may rely on documents evidencing a prior conviction that identify the 
STATE v. VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

4

defendant with sufficient particularity, including a physical description or 

photograph. See State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz. 54, 65 ¶ 54 & n.12 (2005); State v. 

Baca, 102 Ariz. 83, 87 (1967). Here, the records of the prior convictions 

contained Vasquez’ full name, biographical data, a physical description, 

and a photo depicting multiple distinctive face tattoos the court was able to 

use to compare while observing Vasquez. Given the identifying 

information already associated with the prior convictions, the fingerprint 

evidence was not required to link them to Vasquez.

¶9 Second, Vasquez was not prejudiced by the gathering or use 

of the fingerprint evidence. The State had a right, upon proper written 

request, to collect fingerprints from Vasquez, provided they were sought in 

connection with the charged offenses and his counsel had an opportunity 

to be present. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.2(a)(1)(C). There was never any doubt 

that the State could obtain the evidence; the only question was when and 

how. Vasquez is not prejudiced by court orders that simply define the 

boundaries of when and how evidence will be collected that the State 

clearly has a right to obtain.

¶10 Third, there is no indication the State acted in bad faith.

Although the court disagreed with the State’s authority suggesting Rule 

15.2(a) did not apply, every mistake or oversight is not a willful violation of 

the rules. This court defers to the superior court’s assessment of the State’s 

motives based on that court’s observations of the individuals involved. See 

State v. Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250, 252 ¶ 10 (App. 2007). There is nothing in the 

record to suggest that assessment was erroneous here.

¶11 Finally, the sanction properly impressed upon the State the 

importance of complying with procedural rules. The court reminded the 

State that it cannot use evidence it improperly collected, even where it has 

a right to the evidence if properly requested. Although the State had 

sufficient opportunity for a “do-over” before the aggravation phase,

Vasquez has not shown that the sanction was inappropriate.

¶12 A discovery sanction “should cure that harm to the maximum 

practicable extent,” State v. Krone, 182 Ariz. 319, 322 (1995), while 

“affect[ing] the evidence and the merits of the case as little as possible,” 

Jimenez v. Chavez, 234 Ariz. 448, 452 ¶ 18 (App. 2014) (citation omitted). The

record reflects that the court here fashioned a remedy sufficient to impress 

upon the State the importance of complying with the rules that preserved 

Vasquez’ right to a fair trial. For these reasons, Vasquez has shown no abuse 

of discretion. 
STATE v. VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶13 Vasquez’ convictions and sentences are affirmed.