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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ALFREDO ROMAN MORENO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0006 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-433596-001

The Honorable Richard J. Hinz, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

Alfredo Roman Moreno, Phoenix

Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

FILED 10-17-2019
STATE v. MORENO

Decision of the Court

2

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Alfredo Roman Moreno appeals the superior court’s order 

denying his application to designate his Class 4 felony conviction a 

misdemeanor. Moreno argues the court erred in finding the conviction was 

not eligible for such a designation under Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 

section 13-604(A) (2019).1 Because A.R.S. § 13-604(A) only allows certain 

undesignated Class 6 felony convictions to be designated misdemeanors, 

the order is affirmed. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2016, Moreno pled guilty to possession of less than two 

pounds of marijuana for sale, a Class 4 felony, and a non-dangerous, nonrepetitive offense, and was placed on probation for two years. 

¶3 In 2018, after he was discharged from probation, Moreno, pro 

se, filed a form “Application to Designate a Class 6 Undesignated Felony as 

a Misdemeanor.” Where the form referenced a Class 6 felony, Moreno 

crossed out the printed numeral “6” and handwrote “4.” In the form, 

Moreno states he had “successfully compl[ied] with all the terms order[ed] 

by the Superior Court of the State of Arizona. And therefore, the 

designation for the offense to a misdemeanor will provide a less harsh 

approach.” The court denied the application, finding Moreno’s Class 4 

felony conviction was not eligible for designation as a misdemeanor under 

A.R.S. § 13-604(A).2 This court has jurisdiction over Moreno’s timely appeal

from that ruling pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution 

and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1).

 

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

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

2 Although Moreno was convicted of a Class 4 felony, the order denying his 

application referred to a Class 5 felony, an error that does not impact the 

merits of the order denying his application or this appeal.
STATE v. MORENO

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION 

¶4 Moreno’s application asked that his Class 4 felony conviction 

be designated a misdemeanor pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604(A). That statute, 

however, only authorizes certain Class 6 felony convictions to be 

designated as misdemeanors: 

[I]f a person is convicted of any class 6 felony

not involving a dangerous offense and if the 

court, having regard to the nature and 

circumstances of the crime and to the history 

and character of the defendant, is of the opinion 

that it would be unduly harsh to sentence the 

defendant for a felony, the court may enter 

judgment of conviction for a class 1 

misdemeanor.

A.R.S. § 13-604(A) (emphasis added). The statute does not authorize a more 

serious felony offense (like Moreno’s Class 4 felony conviction) to be 

designated a misdemeanor. See id.

¶5 Moreno argues that section 13-604(A) should apply because 

the order discharging him from probation stated: “*Notice: The defendant 

may request misdemeanor designation for an undesignated offense; see 

A.R.S. 13-604.” This statement alerts defendants to the possibility of section 

13-604 relief, if they qualify. Moreno’s Class 4 felony conviction, however, 

is not eligible for designation as a misdemeanor. Nor has Moreno cited any 

other authority that would allow a court to designate his Class 4 felony 

conviction a misdemeanor or how the form order could modify the 

requirements outlined in section 13-604(A).3 

 

3 Moreno states, for the first time on appeal and without supporting 

authority, that the law should be “equally discharge[d] to everyone 

regardless of their race, gender, immigration status, the laws of the United 

States need be impartial and equal to every person under its jurisdiction.” 

By failing to press this argument with the superior court, support it with 

authority on appeal, or show fundamental error resulting in prejudice, it is 

waived. See State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 138 ¶ 1 (2018) (“When a 

defendant fails to object to trial error, he forfeits appellate relief absent a 

showing of fundamental error”); see also State v. Sanchez, 200 Ariz. 163, 166 

¶ 8 (App. 2001) (finding waiver for failure to develop argument). 
STATE v. MORENO

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶6 Because Moreno has shown no error, the order denying his 

application to designate his Class 4 felony conviction a misdemeanor is 

affirmed.