Court Opinion

ID: 9927985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 17:03:50.623112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:28:22.641332
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                    JOSE LEONARDO ALBA, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0506
                               FILED 1-30-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2020-101481-001
               The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Gracynthia Claw
Counsel for Appellee

Michael J. Dew, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.
                             STATE v. ALBA
                           Decision of the Court

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1            Jose Leonardo Alba appeals his conviction and sentence for
possession of drug paraphernalia. For the following reasons, we affirm.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
verdict. State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509, ¶ 93 (2013). Alba lived with his
Father, codefendant Jose Jimenez. In December 2019, Scottsdale police
installed a camera on a pole outside their house (“the Residence”) to
capture footage of the street and driveway. In early January 2020, the
surveillance revealed Evan Zurow together with Alba and Jimenez
bringing a large duffle bag in and out of the Residence, storing it in the
backseat of his car, and fiddling with the door panel of his car. After
observing Zurow leave the Residence, Police initiated a traffic stop and
searched Zurow’s car with his consent. Police discovered $23,000 cash in a
duffel bag and 20 Adderall pills with a ledger that said “Adderall - 150 out
of 1000 - 300 trip.” They also noticed the screws and insulation in the back-
door panel had been removed, creating a hollowed-out space. Police
searched Zurow’s cell phone and saw a recent text message from Alba and
a note that mentioned the address of the Residence. During a post-Miranda
interview, Zurow stated Alba and Jimenez “loaded up his vehicle with
black plastic wrapped items and placed it into his door panels,” but that the
Adderall pills were his and he bought them from someone else.

¶3           Police sought a search warrant for the Residence. In the
supporting affidavit, Officer Ryan included information about videos of
Zurow’s visit to the Residence, the cash and Adderall found during
Zurow’s traffic stop, Zurow’s statements about Alba and Jimenez, Officer
Ryan’s impression and experience about runners moving money, and
Jimenez’s prior convictions for drug sales. The affidavit did not contain
Zurow’s statement that the Adderall pills were his and that he bought them
from someone else. The superior court commissioner found probable cause
that the Residence’s occupants had committed drug possession, money
laundering, and conspiracy, and issued the warrant.

¶4          During a search of the Residence, officers found several
packages of small plastic baggies and a safe containing $33,000 in cash
bound with rubber bands which Officer Ryan testified were found in Alba’s
room. In Jimenez’s room, police also found $176,000 cash, 981 shrink-
wrapped fentanyl pills, two guns, a money counter, a scale, a vacuum

                                      2
                              STATE v. ALBA
                            Decision of the Court

sealer, food-saver plastic wrapping, and a cell phone, which received a call
from Sinaloa, Mexico at the time it was found.

¶5             The state charged Alba with possession of narcotic drugs for
sale, money laundering in the second degree, and possession of drug
paraphernalia. Alba and Jimenez filed a joint motion to suppress all
evidence obtained as a result of the warrant and requested a Franks hearing.
See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (process for challenging a warrant
that contains deliberate or reckless omissions of fact). They alleged that the
warrant identifies no connection between the packages in the vehicle and
the defendants, that Officer Ryan intentionally omitted Zurow’s statements
about where he obtained the Adderall pills, and that if this statement was
included, the warrant would have lacked probable cause. The court denied
the motion finding “that even if the omitted facts were included in the
affidavit, probable cause would exist for the issuance of the warrant.”

¶6               At trial, Officer Ryan opined, based on years of experience,
that hollowed-out spaces in door panels are typically used to store and
transport money and drugs. And he opined that “small plastic Ziploc[]
baggies” were “typically used for lower street level deals to transport and
to sell illegal drugs.” Officer Ryan stated he did not see “anything” in Alba’s
room “that could legitimately be packaged into those baggies.” Officer
Ryan testified it was his belief the baggies were found in Alba’s room, but
also conceded he could be mistaken. Officer Ryan did not personally find
the baggies in Alba’s room, and the police report did not specify the room
in which the baggies were found.

¶7             In closing statements, defense counsel argued that Alba’s
“mere presence” at the Residence and knowledge of illegal activity “doesn’t
make [him] guilty of an offense.” When distinguishing the cash found in
Alba’s room from the cash found in Jimenez’s room, defense counsel stated
that “knowledge of the presence doesn’t make one guilty of any illegal
offense” but that the jury would not receive a mere presence instruction
“[b]ecause it’s not the law.”

¶8            The jury found Alba guilty only on the charge of possession
of drug paraphernalia. The court sentenced Alba to a mitigated term of 0.33
years with 1,029 days of presentence incarceration credit. Alba timely
appealed, and we have jurisdiction. Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, 13-4033(A).

                                      3
                              STATE v. ALBA
                            Decision of the Court

                               DISCUSSION

I.     Motion to Suppress the Search Warrant

¶9            Alba argues the superior court abused its discretion by
denying his motion to suppress and request for a Franks hearing. We review
the denial of a request for a Franks hearing de novo. Frimmel v. Sanders, 236
Ariz. 232, 238, ¶ 25 (App. 2014) (as amended).

¶10           All search warrants must be supported by probable cause.
A.R.S. § 13-3915(A), -3913, -3914(B). Probable cause exists if “given all the
circumstances set forth in the affidavit before [the magistrate], including the
‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay
information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238
(1983).

¶11           A defendant is entitled to a hearing on a Franks motion if he
“makes a substantial preliminary showing (1) that the affiant knowingly,
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth included a false
statement in the supporting affidavit, and (2) the false statement was
necessary to the finding of probable cause.” Frimmel, 236 Ariz. at 239, ¶ 27;
Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56. “A Franks challenge is also authorized when it
has been shown a warrant affidavit valid on its face contains deliberate or
reckless omissions of facts that tend to mislead.” Frimmel, 236 Ariz. at 239,
¶ 27 (quoting United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775, 781 (9th Cir. 1985))
(cleaned up). “An affiant is not permitted to tell less than the total story to
manipulate the inferences a magistrate will draw, or intentionally or
recklessly omit facts required to prevent technically true statements in the
affidavit from being misleading.” Id. (cleaned up).

¶12           Alba argues that Officer Ryan intentionally omitted Zurow’s
statement that the Adderall was not from Alba to intentionally mislead the
commissioner. He contends that including the statement would have
revealed there was no connection between the packages in the vehicle and
Alba. But the necessary connection for purposes of obtaining the warrant
was between Zurow and the Residence. The warrant affidavit summarized
the surveillance videos showing Zurow bringing the duffel bag from the
Residence to his car immediately before the traffic stop, and Zurow’s
statement that Alba and Jimenez loaded unknown items into his door
panel. This information demonstrated the necessary connection to establish
probable cause for a search of the Residence.

                                       4
                              STATE v. ALBA
                            Decision of the Court

¶13            Including the omitted statement does not defeat probable
cause as to the Residence established by the other information included in
the affidavit. For this reason, Alba did not satisfy the second prong of the
Franks preliminary showing, and the superior court appropriately denied
the motion to suppress and request for a Franks hearing.

II.    Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶14            Alba contests the sufficiency of evidence to support his
conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. We review sufficiency of
the evidence de novo and resolve all inferences against Alba. State v. Burns,
237 Ariz. 1, 20, ¶ 72 (2015). To obtain relief, Alba must show the record lacks
“substantial evidence” supporting his conviction. State v. Pena, 235 Ariz.
277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). “Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable
persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up). “[W]e view the evidence in the light
most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict” and do not reweigh the
evidence. State v. Dodd, 244 Ariz. 182, 185, ¶ 8 (App. 2017).

¶15            To support a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia,
the state must prove Alba possessed “equipment, products[, or] materials
of any kind” used or intended for use in “packaging, repackaging, storing,
containing, [or] concealing” an illegal drug. A.R.S. § 13-3415(A), -3415(F)(2).
Drug paraphernalia includes “[c]ontainers and other objects used, intended
for use or designed for use in storing or concealing drugs,” A.R.S. § 13-
3415(F)(2)(j), and “[c]apsules, balloons, envelopes and other containers
used, intended for use or designed for use in packaging small quantities of
drugs,” A.R.S. § 13-3415(F)(2)(i).

¶16           To support the drug paraphernalia charge, the state presented
evidence that officers found baggies in Alba’s bedroom, that fentanyl pills
were found elsewhere in the Residence, and that nothing else was found in
Alba’s room that could have been packaged in the baggies. Officer Ryan
opined that the quantity of drugs, amount of cash, small baggies, and
pattern of vehicles coming in and out of the Residence indicated that the
“fentanyl pills were processed for sale.” The jury saw photos of the baggies.
And the defense presented no evidence of other uses for the baggies.

¶17           Alba contends that because Officer Ryan said he did not
personally see the baggies in Alba’s room, and the “report did not reflect
where Exhibits 11-14 were actually located,” Alba was convicted “merely
because the baggies were found in the house where he was living.” The jury
heard Officer Ryan’s testimony that he believed the baggies were located in

                                      5
                              STATE v. ALBA
                            Decision of the Court

Alba’s room, and the officer’s concession that it was possible he was
mistaken. And the jury found Alba innocent on other charges, while
convicting him of drug paraphernalia possession. Alba asks us to reject the
jury’s conclusions by reweighing the officer’s credibility and testimony. We
cannot do so. State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353, 357, ¶ 27 (2007) (“[T]he credibility
of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are
questions exclusively for the jury.”). The evidence presented at trial was
sufficient to support Alba’s conviction for possession of drug
paraphernalia.

III.   Mere Presence Instruction

¶18           Alba argues defense counsel failed to request a mere presence
instruction, and the court failed to deliver the instruction, resulting in
prejudice to him. This argument is essentially a claim for ineffective
assistance of counsel. “[I]neffective assistance of counsel claims are to be
brought in Rule 32 proceedings. Any such claims improvidently raised in a
direct appeal . . . will not be addressed by appellate courts regardless of
merit.” See State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9 (2002). We therefore cannot
consider Alba’s argument. There is “no preclusive effect under Rule 32 by
the mere raising of such issues” and Alba may still argue this claim in a
proper post-conviction relief proceeding. Id.

                              CONCLUSION

¶19           We affirm Alba’s conviction and sentences.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                        6