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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

ADAN ORDUNO, JR., 

Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0663 

 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2012-158171-001 

The Honorable Pamela D. Svoboda, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Craig W. Soland 

Counsel for Appellee 

Ballecer & Segal, LLP, Phoenix 

By Natalee Segal 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ORDUNO 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which 

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined. 

S W A N N, Judge: 

¶1 Adan Orduno, Jr. (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction for 

influencing a witness. He contends the trial court’s decision to post a 

bodyguard next to a witness during her testimony constituted reversible 

error.1 For the following reasons, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and 

sentences. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 While awaiting trial on other charges, Defendant escaped 

from a Maricopa County jail by using a make-shift rope to access the 

ceiling tiles in his cell and crawling out onto the jail roof sometime before 

morning on November 11, 2012; he had left his pants stuffed with trash in 

his bed to simulate a sleeping person. Jail security noticed he was missing 

about 9:00 a.m. on November 11 and began a search of the area. Maricopa 

County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) officers later saw Defendant on security 

camera footage from a nearby convenience store, wearing a jail-issued 

blanket, pink socks, and slide-on shoes. MCSO officers spoke to Witness 

(“Witness”), a woman who had visited Defendant while he was in jail, 

and asked for her help in apprehending him. When Defendant called 

Witness, she arranged a meeting with him to allow the officers to take him 

back into custody. MCSO officers took Defendant into custody when he 

arrived to meet her. 

¶3 A few weeks after Defendant was apprehended and 

returned to jail, he sent Witness a threatening letter. In the letter, 

Defendant implied that he and Witness had had a relationship and made 

sexually explicit comments about her. He also wrote that if Witness did 

 

1 Defendant also submitted a pro se supplemental opening brief. A 

different panel of this court struck the supplemental brief because 

Defendant has no right to hybrid representation. We therefore do not 

consider arguments from the pro se brief. 
STATE v. ORDUNO 

Decision of the Court 

3 

not pay him $25,000, he would tell the police that she had been involved 

in several serious crimes. Witness later testified at trial that she had no 

knowledge of the crimes to which Defendant had alluded, but she felt 

frightened nonetheless. Defendant’s letter also contained statements 

implying that she should expect retribution for cooperating with the 

police. On April 4, 2013, Defendant was indicted for escape, influencing a 

witness, and five counts of bribery of a public servant or party officer, 

though the court later dismissed the bribery charges on the state’s motion. 

¶4 The parties estimated the trial would last about five days, 

but it was prolonged for numerous reasons. Before the trial began, a 

discovery dispute delayed jury selection while the jury pool waited. 

Defendant chose to represent himself at trial, but because he was 

considered a security risk, he wore restraints during trial. To prevent 

jurors from seeing the restraints, the court took the time to hold all bench 

conferences at the defense table and put them on the record after the jury 

left the courtroom. On the second day of trial, Defendant developed a 

medical issue that required treatment, resulting in an early dismissal for 

the day. His condition and treatment also caused additional timeconsuming discussion without the jury present. The next day, a juror had 

an emergency that caused an early dismissal because the jury did not have 

alternate jurors. The trial slowed again two days later as Defendant 

conducted a very lengthy cross-examination of Witness. The court 

acknowledged to the jury that the trial was progressing slowly. 

¶5 Before the sixth trial day, the court received an email from a 

juror expressing frustration about the trial delays, complaining about 

Defendant’s conduct, and expressing doubt that the juror could be 

unbiased about Defendant. The email also stated that the jurors had 

discussed their frustration with Defendant among themselves. The court 

individually interviewed the jurors to ensure they had not violated the 

admonition by discussing the facts of the case. None of the jurors 

admitted to discussing the facts of the case, but two jurors stated they had 

already formed an opinion regarding Defendant’s guilt. After further 

questioning, the two jurors said they could remain impartial until 

deliberations, and the court did not dismiss them. When the court 

interviewed the juror who had sent the email, the juror stated that he had 

been affected by Witness’s demeanor: “I was sitting right in front of the 

witness. She was visibly shaken when she sat down. She was with a 

security guard sitting next to her.” He affirmed, however, that he had not 

formed an opinion about Defendant’s guilt, and the trial continued. 
STATE v. ORDUNO 

Decision of the Court 

4 

¶6 The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts and 

found one aggravating factor for the escape charge and two aggravating 

factors for the influencing a witness charge. The court sentenced 

Defendant accordingly to imprisonment for an aggravated term of six 

years for escape and a super-aggravated term of seven and one half years 

for influencing a witness, to be served consecutively. Defendant appeals. 

DISCUSSION 

¶7 Defendant asserts, based on one juror’s statement, that the 

court stationed a bodyguard next to Witness as she testified. He contends 

that the presence of the security guard seated with Witness while she 

testified violated his right to due process, his right to confront and crossexamine witnesses and his right to the presumption of innocence. He 

asserts that the court’s decision to place security next to Witness led the 

jury to believe that the court thought he was guilty, precluding a fair trial 

on the charge of influencing a witness. 

¶8 Generally, the trial court has broad discretion over 

courtroom security measures, State v. Cruz, 218 Ariz. 149, 168, ¶ 118 (2008) 

and we uphold its security measures when they are supported by the 

record, State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, 211, ¶ 84 (2004). Because Defendant 

did not raise the issue of courtroom security in the trial court, we review 

only for fundamental error. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 

(2005). On fundamental error review, Defendant must prove both that 

fundamental error occurred and that it caused him prejudice. Id. at ¶ 20. 

Based on the individual facts and circumstances of a case, the deployment 

of security personnel could amount to fundamental error if it “takes away 

a right that is essential to [a defendant’s] defense, and is of such 

magnitude that he could not have received a fair trial.” Id. at 568, ¶ 24. 

¶9 But “conspicuous, or at least noticeable, deployment of 

security personnel in a courtroom during trial” is not inherently 

prejudicial to a defendant. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568-69 (1986). 

Because noticeable security measures may create the impression in the 

minds of the jury that a defendant is dangerous or guilty, such measures 

are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for prejudice. Id. at 569, 571. 

¶10 To demonstrate error, Defendant must first provide 

evidence of a conspicuous security presence in his trial. State v. Rivera, 168 

Ariz. 102, 103 (App. 1990) (“[I]t is the defendant’s duty to prepare the 

record in such a manner as to enable an appellate court to pass upon the 

questions sought to be raised in the appeal.”). Defendant points only to 
STATE v. ORDUNO 

Decision of the Court 

5 

the juror’s statement that Witness “was with a security guard sitting next 

to her.”2 From that statement, it is unclear even if the juror was speaking 

about the witness sitting at the stand to testify or sitting in the gallery after 

her testimony. The juror’s statement described nothing about the guard’s 

demeanor or actions. Defendant had the opportunity to clarify the juror’s 

concern through further questioning, but did not do so. Without more, 

the fact that one juror took note of one security guard in the court does not 

demonstrate a prejudicial security presence. We therefore conclude that 

Defendant has not presented sufficient evidence to enable us to determine 

that courtroom security was noticeable to the jury.3 On this record, we 

can find no error, much less fundamental error. 

 

2 When Witness first took the stand, she testified that she was 

nervous, adding “I would feel more comfortable with security standing 

right here.” 

3 Defendant’s assertion that the court intentionally omitted from the 

record its decision to place a guard next to Witness during her testimony 

is both unsupported and highly improbable. The trial transcripts alone 

are over 1000 pages and contain extensive discussions about security 

measures, including the court’s concerns that Defendant not reveal he was 

in custody during the trial. The trial court went to great lengths to 

preserve the trial record and avoid prejudicing the jury. 
STATE v. ORDUNO 

Decision of the Court 

6 

CONCLUSION 

¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant’s convictions 

and sentences.