State v. Ruiz-Solis

── State v. Ruiz-Solis ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: June 03, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. ANDRES RUIZ-SOLIS, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 24-0360 FILED 06-03-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015CR202300644 The Honorable Billy K. Sipe Jr., Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED IN PART, MODIFIED IN PART COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Christine Davis Counsel for Appellee Carr Law Office, PLLC, Kingman By Sandra Carr Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. RUIZ-SOLIS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Anni Hill Foster joined and Judge Veronika Fabian joined as to all but paragraphs 26–28. Judge Fabian also specially concurred. M O R S E, Judge: ¶1 Andres Ruiz-Solis appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts each of armed robbery, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault, all designated dangerous offenses. For the following reasons, we affirm the convictions, and affirm the imposition of consecutive sentences, but modify the sentences imposed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In 2023, Ruiz-Solis, age 17, and a co-defendant approached two other juveniles, "Joseph"1 and "Michael," at a public park. With his finger on the trigger, Ruiz-Solis pressed a handgun equipped with a laser-pointer sight into Joseph's neck and ordered him to surrender his belongings. Joseph handed over a fanny pack containing small personal items. While Ruiz-Solis kept his gun against Joseph's neck, his accomplice took Michael's backpack, which contained cash and electronics. No shots were fired and nobody was physically injured. The stolen property was worth slightly more than $200. Both victims testified they were scared during the incident. A friend of Ruiz-Solis and the victim videoed the incident, and Ruiz-Solis posted the video online. ¶3 Before trial, the superior court granted Ruiz-Solis's motion in limine to preclude any mention of a local Bullhead City gang—"Bullhead Killas" ("BHK"). At trial, the prosecutor asked one victim where he had seen the video posted on Instagram. The victim responded "I seen it on BHK." Based on his motion in limine, Ruiz-Solis objected and moved for a mistrial. The superior court agreed the reference should not have been made, but denied the motion for mistrial, reasoning it "can't imagine the jury would 1 We use pseudonyms in place of victims' names to protect their identities. Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(i). 2  STATE v. RUIZ-SOLIS Decision of the Court know what BHK means." Ruiz-Solis opted against a curative instruction to avoid highlighting the remark. ¶4 The jury convicted Ruiz-Solis on all counts as to each victim, finding the offenses dangerous. The jury also found multiple aggravating factors. The superior court sentenced Ruiz-Solis to aggravated prison terms for each count. Because "each victim suffered a separate harm," the superior court ordered that while all counts relating to each individual victim should be served concurrently, the sentence counts involving different victims would be served consecutively, resulting in a combined term of 42 years in prison. ¶5 Ruiz-Solis timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-