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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Appellee
,

v.

ALEXANDER NAPIER FLORENCE
, Appellant

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0513 FILED 12

- 19

- 2019

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017

- 111034

- 001 The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Casey Ball Counsel for Appellee

The Bidwill Law Firm PLLC
, Phoenix By Josephine F. Bidwill C ounsel for AppellantSTATE v. FLORENCE Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Peter B

. Swann delivered the decision of the Court, in which Acting Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Joshua Rogers 1 joined.

S W A N N , Judge:

¶1 Alexander Napier Florence appeals his convictions and
sentences for possession of narcotic drugs, possess ion of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Florence was charged with one count each of possession of narcotic drugs , possession of drug parap hernalia, and possession of mariju ana. Before trial, h e invoked his right to self

- representation through a voluntary, signed waiver of counsel , which the court accepted. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court told Florence to appear at hearings on time and warned him that failure to appear could result in revocation of his right to self

- representation

. Florence nevertheless failed to arrive on time “several times” at pretrial proceedings, resulting in bench warrants that

were later quashed

. ¶3 The day before trial, Flor ence again failed to appear on time

. T he court consequently admonished him when he arrived to be on time and warned him of the consequence s of failing to appear

. During trial, the court repeated its warning, stat ing “make sure you’re here on time. If you fail to appear, a warrant could issue for your arrest and the hearing could continue in your absence .”

¶4 After the jury retired to deliberate on the final trial day, Florence told the court that he planned to “stick ar ound” to wait for the verdict. The jury was ready to return its verdict about a ha lf

- hour later

.

1 The Honorable Joshua Rogers, Judge of the Arizona Superior Court, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Consti tution.STATE v. FLORENCE Decision of the Court

3 When the court reconvened, Florence was not present, and the bailiff was unable to locate him

. The court subsequently revoked Florence’s pro per status and app ointed his advisory counsel for the remainder of the proceedings.

¶5 The jury , by its verdict, found Florence guilty as charged. Florence advised the court at sentencing that he had intended to be present for the verdict
, but “g[ot ] cold feet [.]” He did not object when the court informed him that his pro per status had been revoked. The court sentenced Florence to three concurrent terms of incarceration: a term of 6.5 years for possession of narcotic drugs , 3.75 year s for possession of drug paraphernalia, and 3.75 years for possession of marijuana. It also credited him with 189 days’ presentence incarceration credit. Florence appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶6 Florence’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by revoking his right to represent himself. We review a trial court’s decision
to revoke a defendant’s self

- representation status for an abuse of discretion

. State v. Hidalgo , 241 Ariz. 543, 554 ¶ 44 (2017). A defendant has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel , “ but only so long as the defendant is able and willing to abide by the rules of procedure and courtroom protocol. ” State v. Gomez
, 231 Ariz. 219, 222 ¶ 8 (2012) (quoting St ate v. Whalen
, 192 Ariz. 103, 106 (App. 1997)).

¶7 Florence repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to abide by court orders and rules . As the record reflects, Florence

was explicitly admonished several times for being late to hearings and warned that proceedings could continue in his absence if he failed to
appear

. Notwithstanding the trial court ’s warnings
, Florence was continually late to pretrial proceedings and ultimately failed to appear for the pronouncement of the jur y’s verdict
, despite his advising the court that he planned to stay nearby to wait for the verdict

. As such, t he trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Florence’s pro per status.STATE v. FLORENCE Decision of the Court

4 C ONCLUSION

¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.