State v. Rodriguez

── State v. Rodriguez ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: June 05, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. 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 war