Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department A
Not for Publication -Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-127306-001 The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens, Judge
Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General, By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Alice Jones, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender, By Terry J. Reid, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant
MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge
¶1 Ray David Camez appeals his convictions and sentences for forgery and criminal possession of a forgery device. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Law enforcement executed a search warrant at a Phoenix residence. Camez was the only person present at the residence. Officers seized currency later determined to be counterfeit, as well as debit and gift cards, an Epson copier/printer/scanner (Epson printer), two embossing machines, and a laminator.
¶3 Camez was charged with forgery, a class four felony, and criminal possession of a forgery device, a class six felony. He failed to appear for trial and was tried in absentia.
¶4 At trial, a police officer testified about the embossing machines, laminating machine, and counterfeit currency found at Camez's home. A Secret Service agent testified that the seized evidence included counterfeit currency and "images of U.S. currency on printed pieces of paper" that had not yet been cut. He further testified that the Epson printer is a device commonly used to produce counterfeit currency.
¶5 Camez's counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 20, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Rule"), arguing Camez's mere presence at the residence was insufficient and that no further nexus existed between Camez and the contraband found in the home. The court denied the motion. The jury found Camez guilty as charged, and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
¶6 Camez timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21, 13-4031, and -4033.
¶7 Camez contends the trial court permitted the State to proceed on duplicitous charges and failed "to take remedial measures to ensure a unanimous verdict." Because Camez failed to raise these arguments below, we review for fundamental error. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005) (citation omitted). "Article 2, Section 23 of the Arizona Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to a unanimous jury verdict in a criminal case. A violation of that right ...