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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SAMUEL WAYNE ESTRADA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0386

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-450249-001

The Honorable Brian Kaiser, Judge Pro Tem

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Kathryn L. Petroff

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
STATE v. ESTRADA

Decision of the Court

2

G E M M I L L, Judge:

¶1 Samuel Wayne Estrada (hereinafter “Estrada”) appeals his 

conviction and sentence for one count of aggravated domestic violence, a 

class 5 felony. Estrada’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating 

that she has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and 

requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Estrada

was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not 

do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). For the 

following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in 

the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” State v. Powers, 200 

Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2 (App. 2001). This court has jurisdiction under 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.

1

¶3 On the morning of October 7, 2013, Estrada’s mother, N.E., 

returned home after staying overnight in a hotel because her son, Estrada, 

had moved in four days earlier and tended to be messy and noisy. Estrada 

had an important appointment later in the day, and N.E. wanted to ensure 

he would attend. When Estrada requested that N.E. bring him some vodka, 

she acquiesced in order to “kind of brib[e] him” and “convince him that 

[she] had come home to take him to [his] appointment.” Estrada finished 

the pint of vodka N.E. had brought him and requested more. N.E. refused, 

and Estrada became angry with her. An argument ensued, and N.E. 

“started to walk out” of the house when she noticed a “change in his face” 

that she associated from past experience with aggression.

¶4 The house’s front door opened into the living room, where 

N.E. and Estrada had been seated. N.E. stood up to leave and turned her 

back to Estrada, who told N.E. she “wasn’t going anywhere.” Estrada then 

pushed N.E. forcefully in her upper back, causing N.E. to fall to the ground. 

N.E. yelled for assistance from her longtime next-door neighbor, T.F., 

whom she had asked earlier that morning to listen for her voice and look 

out for her. Estrada stood over N.E., mocking her calls for help and 

 

1 We cite the current version of applicable statutes because no 

revisions material to this decision have occurred since the events in 

question.
STATE v. ESTRADA

Decision of the Court

3

threatening that she “was going to get what was coming to [her].” T.F. 

arrived quickly, however, and Estrada opened the door for T.F. and sat 

down on a bench on the front porch. T.F. found N.E. still lying on the 

ground in the living room. Due to disability, T.F. could only push an 

exercise bike over to N.E., which she used to pull herself to her feet. N.E. 

sustained a scratch to her knee as well as general soreness throughout her 

body.

¶5 At trial, N.E. testified that Estrada had been convicted of 

multiple domestic violence offenses prior to the October 7 incident. N.E. 

identified certified court documentation from five prior domestic violence 

cases naming Estrada as the perpetrator and N.E. as the victim. Estrada 

moved to preclude N.E.’s testimony regarding the prior convictions. He 

alleged that he was not provided proper notice by the State with regard to 

N.E.’s proposed testimony and was not allowed to interview her because 

she, as a victim, declined to be interviewed. The court denied the motion, 

citing the victim’s bill of rights and reminding Estrada that as long as N.E.

had personal knowledge of the prior domestic violence incidents, the 

defense was not entitled to notice of a victim’s specific testimony. The court 

excluded one of the five court documents offered by the State, because N.E.

could not provide the necessary foundation. 

¶6 At the close of N.E.’s direct testimony, Estrada moved for a 

mistrial based on N.E.’s use of three undisclosed police reports to refresh 

her memory of the prior domestic violence offenses, N.E.’s inadvertent 

reading aloud of the phrase “sentence of imprisonment” while looking at 

one of the documents, and the prosecutor’s whispering off the record while 

directing N.E.’s attention to certain portions of the documentation. The 

court denied Estrada’s motion, ruling: 1) the police reports were not 

introduced as evidence and, as a substitute for a continuance, defense 

counsel could review them over the weekend; 2) the jurors were given a 

limiting instruction to cure N.E.’s use of the phrase “sentence of 

imprisonment”; and 3) the prosecutor’s whispering was harmless, but it 

was “absolutely not appropriate” and could not be repeated. 

¶7 An eight-member jury convicted Estrada of aggravated 

domestic violence. Estrada moved for a new trial, arguing that admission 

of Exhibits 16–19 identifying N.E. as the victim of Estrada’s prior domestic 

violence violated Arizona Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). The motion 

also asserted prosecutorial misconduct occurred during rebuttal argument 

when the State referred to Estrada’s history of domestic violence against 

N.E., which, according to Estrada, constituted an inappropriate propensity 

argument. The court denied the motion, explaining: 1) Under State v. 
STATE v. ESTRADA

Decision of the Court

4

Ferrero, 229 Ariz. 239, 243, ¶ 20 (2012), if propensity evidence is required to 

prove the crime charged, it is not subject to Rule 404 analysis, and 

“defendant’s prior convictions are a necessary element of the crime of 

aggravated domestic violence”; 2) as to Rule 403, “the evidence is both 

relevant and probative” and the prejudice inherent in the nature of the prior 

offenses is outweighed because N.E., as the victim, had to “establish[ ] her 

personal knowledge of [Estrada’s] convictions represented by the certified 

court records”; and 3) the prosecutorial misconduct alleged repeats the 

pretrial motions regarding the admission of prior offenses and “[t]he State’s 

presentation of evidence through [N.E.] was consistent with the Court’s 

rulings on those motions and did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct.” 

¶8 A trial on prior convictions was held as part of the sentencing 

hearing. The State proved four prior convictions by successfully 

introducing an Arizona Department of Corrections’ summary report and

certified minute entries of the convictions, which were read into the record 

by N.E. Estrada was sentenced to a slightly mitigated term of four years

imprisonment. He was credited with 228 days of presentence incarceration.

DISCUSSION

¶9 Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a trial 

court’s decision whether to preclude a witness, grant a mistrial, or deny a 

motion for new trial. State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 456–58, ¶¶ 124, 135 

(2004); Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P.L.C. v. Petta, 236 Ariz. 568, 581, ¶ 37 (App. 

2015). 

¶10 Estrada was charged with aggravated domestic violence, 

which requires proof of “a third or subsequent violation of a domestic 

violence offense” within eighty-four months of a second domestic violence 

offense, defined in A.R.S. § 13-3601(A) as a homicide, assault, kidnapping, 

sexual assault, burglary, or other violent act directed toward a closely

associated or related victim. A.R.S. § 13-3601.02. In support of the 

admission of Estrada’s prior domestic violence convictions, the State chose 

to ask N.E. a series of foundational questions about each conviction. The 

trial court appropriately sanitized Estrada’s prior domestic violence 

convictions by limiting N.E.’s testimony, although the State was permitted 

to establish N.E. as the victim in order to prove her personal knowledge of 

the events. Estrada may have preferred a disinterested custodian of records 

as the witness to present evidence of prior domestic violence convictions, 

but we agree with the trial court that Estrada “cannot dictate the State’s 

presentation of its case.” Furthermore, Estrada’s prior convictions were 

clearly relevant as necessary elements of the aggravated domestic violence 
STATE v. ESTRADA

Decision of the Court

5

charge. Finally, any previous disclosure violations on the part of the State 

were cured by granting a continuance, and the asserted instances of 

prosecutorial misconduct were either remedied by appropriate instruction 

to the jury or so minor and discrete as to not be prejudicial. 

¶11 Having considered defense counsel’s brief and examined the 

record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, we find none. The 

evidence presented supports the conviction, and the sentence imposed falls 

within the range permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, Estrada

was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and 

statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶12 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984), 

counsel’s obligations in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more 

than inform Estrada of the disposition of the appeal and his future options, 

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

Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Estrada has thirty days 

from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro 

se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶13 The conviction and sentence are affirmed.