State v. Torres

── State v. Torres ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 11, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. JOAQUIN RAMIREZ TORRES, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0093 FILED 05-11-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2023-000550-001 The Honorable Monica S. Garfinkel, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Christine Davis Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Joshua Messick Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. TORRES Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 Joaquin Ramirez Torres appeals his convictions for two counts of possession of narcotic drugs for sale, arguing that (1) the superior court’s admission out-of-court statements of a coconspirator violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and (2) his convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of both the Arizona and United States Constitutions. Because statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy are not testimonial by their nature, their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Furthermore, Torres’s two convictions did not violate either Double Jeopardy Clause because they were based on separate and distinct violations of the applicable statute.1 The convictions are affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 This Court views the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdicts. State v. Duncan, 257 Ariz. 360, 366 ¶ 2 (App. 2024). In February 2023, an undercover law enforcement officer communicated through Facebook with “Abraham” and negotiated a drug transaction for 5,000 fentanyl pills. Abraham requested a phone number so “ma boi can tell where to meet up” and explained “Yo la boi don’t know that much English.” The officer provided Abraham the phone number of a Spanish-speaking officer. ¶3 An unknown Spanish-speaking male then called the Spanish- speaking officer from a Mexican phone number. The Mexican phone number also texted a screenshot of a location in Phoenix for the drug transaction (“Apartment 3”). During one of the calls, the Spanish-speaking 1 Because the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Arizona Constitution is coextensive with the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution, this Court analyzes Double Jeopardy claims under both constitutions identically. State v. Rios, 252 Ariz. 316, 320 ¶ 14 n.3 (App. 2021). 2  STATE v. TORRES Decision of the Court male instructed the officer to meet someone wearing a sombrero and a green shirt. None of the communications from the Mexican phone number were retained or recorded. There was no investigation to trace the Mexican phone number or the original Facebook account through which Abraham communicated. ¶4 Based on that information, law enforcement investigated the location. One officer saw Torres, wearing a green shirt and sombrero, exit Apartment 3 and get into a black Chevrolet Tahoe. Another officer observed Torres sitting in the Tahoe parked just south of Apartment 3. Later, after backup arrived, the police approached the Tahoe and found it empty. The car alarm went off and Torr