Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0667
10-20-2020
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANGELICA RAMIREZ, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joshua C. Smith Counsel for Appellee Yuma County Public Defender, Yuma By Raymond Hanna Counsel for Appellant
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County
No. S1400CR201701175
The Honorable Brandon S. Kinsey, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joshua C. Smith
Counsel for Appellee Yuma County Public Defender, Yuma
By Raymond Hanna
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined. CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Angelica Ramirez appeals from her convictions and sentences for transportation of dangerous drugs for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. But she challenges only the fine imposed for the conviction of transportation of dangerous drugs for sale. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Ramirez was arrested after a law enforcement officer found 22.5 pounds of methamphetamine concealed in hollow metal collars installed in all four tires of her car. The State charged her with transportation of dangerous drugs for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia, and a jury found her guilty as charged.
¶3 The superior court sentenced Ramirez to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the greatest of which is five years. Additionally, the court imposed a fine of $94,837.50, plus surcharge, based on the value of the methamphetamine related to the dangerous-drug offense. See A.R.S. § 13-3407(H). Ramirez timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 13-4033(A).
DISCUSSION
¶4 Ramirez asserts that the superior court lacked sufficient evidence to determine the methamphetamine's value, which in turn controls the amount of the fine imposed under § 13-3407(H). We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, assessing whether the evidence was such that a rational factfinder could find proof of the relevant fact beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶¶ 15-16 (2011).
¶5 After an individual is convicted of a dangerous-drug offense under § 13-3407(A), the superior court must impose a fine equal to the greater of $1,000 or three times the value of the dangerous drugs involved, up to a maximum of $150,000. A.R.S. § 13-3407(H); see also A.R.S. § 13- 801(A). Here, the court imposed a $94,837.50 fine, which is three times a total value of $31,612.50 in methamphetamine.
¶6 A detective assigned to a DEA Task Force testified at trial that, at the time of the offense, the street value of 22.5 pounds of methamphetamine was between $1,000 and $1,500 per pound. Although Ramirez now asserts that the detective's testimony was baseless and equivocal, she neither disputed this valuation nor challenged the basis for the detective's knowledge during trial. Based on this range of price per pound, the 22.5 pounds of methamphetamine found in Ramirez's car would be worth between $22,500 and $33,750; the $31,612.50 value on which the superior court relied falls within this range.
¶7 Similarly, the presentence report estimated the total value of the 22.5 pounds of methamphetamine based on a DEA drug price list as being between $24,975 and $38,250. Ramirez never disputed this valuation, and the superior court may generally rely on uncontested facts in a presentence report. See State v. Molina, 211 Ariz. 130, 138, ¶ 29 (App. 2005); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.8(b)-(c) (allowing objections and corrections to a presentence report). Again, the $31,612.50 value on which the superior court relied falls within this range.
¶8 Accordingly, sufficient evidence supported the superior court's valuation, and we thus affirm the fine imposed.
Although Ramirez did not raise the issue on appeal, the State points out that Ramirez was entitled to a jury determination of the methamphetamine's value because it increased the criminal fine beyond the minimum amount required. See State v. Angulo-Chavez, 247 Ariz. 255, 259-60, ¶¶ 12-13 (App. 2019); see also Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111-16 (2013); S. Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343, 346, 349-50 (2012). This type of error is fundamental and here potentially prejudicial because the court did not choose the lowest value supported by the evidence. See Angulo-Chavez, 247 Ariz. at 260-61, ¶¶ 15-16. But Ramirez may have chosen not to raise the issue because if this case were to be remanded at her request, there would be no constitutional prohibition on a greater punishment than the one imposed by the superior court. See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726 (1969) (holding that a more severe sentence may be imposed after a new trial if the fact-finder's reasons for doing so affirmatively appear). Because reversal on this basis might result in a worse outcome for Ramirez, we decline to reach beyond the issue presented on appeal; Ramirez must pursue any such challenge, if she wishes to do so, by petition for post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.
CONCLUSION
¶9 We affirm Ramirez's convictions and sentences.