State v. Rodriguez

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SERGIO GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0003
FILED 06-05-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-127673-002
The Honorable Joseph Shayne Kiefer, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Bain & Lauritano, PLC, Glendale
By Sheri M. Lauritano
Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Sergio Gerardo Rodriguez appeals his convictions and
sentences for possession of dangerous drugs for sale, possession or use of
dangerous drugs, possession or use of narcotic drugs, misconduct
involving weapons, and unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle.
Counsel for Rodriguez filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
advising us that counsel found no errors or arguable questions of law and
asking us to search the record for fundamental, reversible error. See State v.
Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-69, ¶¶ 19-26 (2005); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530,
537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating this court reviews the entire record for
reversible error). Rodriguez was given the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief; he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we
affirm Rodriguez’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against Rodriguez. See
State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 One day in June 2023, Officer Silvia, an undercover police
officer, began watching Rodriguez’s house after receiving information that
drug sales may be occurring there. He observed people arriving at
Rodriguez’s house, leaving, going into the nearby alley, and taking out
drug paraphernalia to ingest drugs. He then saw Rodriguez leave the
house and drive away in a Hyundai. Other police units followed the vehicle
and attempted to initiate a traffic stop, but Rodriguez fled. Soon after,
Officer Silvia saw the Hyundai drive back down the street “at a high rate of
speed,” pull back into the house’s driveway, and come to “a skidding stop.”
He then saw Rodriguez “exit the driver’s seat and run into the front door.”
A few minutes later, Rodriguez moved a different vehicle in the driveway
to block the view of the Hyundai from the main road.

2
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ
Decision of the Court

¶4 Rodriguez then went back inside the house for about an hour
before again driving away, this time in a Nissan. Officer Silvia and a few
other officers followed. The officers waited for Rodiguez to park the vehicle
and walk away, at which point they took him into custody. Two officers
searched Rodriguez and found methamphetamine in his pants pocket. In
an interview with Officer Silvia, Rodriguez admitted he had fled from law
enforcement earlier in the day because he had a firearm in his vehicle.

¶5 The officers obtained a search warrant for the Hyundai, the
Nissan, and Rodriguez’s house. The vehicle searches revealed tin foil with
four fentanyl pills in the Hyundai’s glove compartment, and
methamphetamine beneath a blanket in the Nissan’s front passenger area.
In Rodriguez’s bedroom, the officers found the firearm Rodriguez had
previously described, methamphetamine, 27 fentanyl pills, digital scales,
packaging material, and drug paraphernalia including tin foil, straws, and
glass pipes.

¶6 A grand jury indicted Rodriguez on six counts: Count One,
possession of dangerous drugs for sale; Count Two, possession or use of
dangerous drugs; Count 3, possession or use of narcotic drugs; Count 4,
misconduct involving weapons; Count 5, misconduct involving weapons;
and Count 6, unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. Before trial,
the court granted the State’s oral motion to sever Count 4, and the jury
convicted Rodriguez on the remaining five counts. The court sentenced
Rodriguez to concurrent prison terms of 10 years on Count 1; 4.5 years on
each of Counts 2, 3, and 5; and 2.25 years on Count 6, with 79 days of
presentence incarceration credit.

¶7 We have jurisdiction over Rodriguez’s timely appeal under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033.

DISCUSSION

¶8 The court has reviewed and considered counsel’s brief. The
court has searched the entire record for reversible error. See Clark, 196 Ariz.
at 537, ¶ 30. Searching the record and reviewing the briefs reveals no
reversible error.

¶9 We note that Rodriguez was not present on the first day of
trial. However, his counsel orally moved to waive his presence in
compliance with Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.1. We also note that
Rodriguez left after lunch on trial day six and did not return on trial day
seven, despite his lawyer calling and texting him multiple times. Rodriguez

3
STATE v. RODRIGUEZ
Decision of the Court

thus voluntarily waived his presence for the remainder of the trial. We
finally note that though Rodriguez failed to appear on the day originally set
for sentencing, the court rescheduled the sentencing hearing, and he
appeared on the rescheduled date. Rodriguez was present at all other
critical stages.

¶10 The record shows Rodriguez was represented by counsel at
all stages of the proceedings and counsel was present at all critical stages.
All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The sentences imposed were within the statutory
limits.

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the reasons stated herein, we affirm Rodriguez’s
convictions and sentences.

¶12 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to
inform Rodriguez of the status of his appeal and of his future options.
Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel
finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by
petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).
Rodriguez shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he
desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. See
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21(b)(2)(A). On the court’s own motion, Rodriguez has
30 days from the date of this decision to file a motion for reconsideration.
See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20(c).

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4