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Not for Publication -Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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. CR2011-159856-001 The Honorable Carolyn K. Passamonte, Judge Pro Tempore
Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Phoenix by Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals Section and Adele Ponce, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee.
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender Phoenix by Paul J. Prato, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant.
PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge
¶1 Stacey Moran appeals from her conviction and probation term for misconduct involving weapons. Moran contends that the state did not present sufficient evidence to prove that she constructively possessed a firearm. We find sufficient evidence, and therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Moran was indicted for misconduct involving weapons and for aggravated assault. She pled not guilty and the matter proceeded to jury trial. The state voluntarily dismissed the aggravated assault charge before the jury was empaneled.
¶3 At trial, the state presented evidence of the following facts. In October 2011, Moran was placed on 15 months of probation for attempted criminal damage, a domestic violence offense. As a condition of her probation, Moran was required to "not possess or control any stun guns, tasers, firearms, ammunition, deadly or prohibited weapons as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3101." Moran's probation officer reiterated that condition when she met with Moran for the first time in early November 2011. Moran then showed the probation officer a gun and asked whether she could keep it for protection. The probation officer said that she could not, and instructed Moran to remove the gun from her home within 24 hours.
¶4 Several weeks later, on November 25, 2011, police responded to a 911 call that Moran had placed. The first-responding officer encountered Moran standing next to a car parked on the roadway across from a residence. Moran told the officer that she had traveled to the residence to retrieve her gun from a former friend, she had argued with the friend inside of the residence, and the friend had broken the gun by throwing it onto the ground. Moran further stated that the gun was now in her car, and then opened the front passenger-side door of the nearby car and pointed to the seat. On the seat, the officer saw a disassembled 9-millimeter pistol. The officer reassembled the pistol, dry-fired it, and found that it functioned as he would expect. Moran then handed the officer a gun case and gun lock, and removed the key for the gun lock from her key ring. The officer took custody of the pistol and the associated items.
¶5 At the close of the state's case-in-chief, Moran moved for a judgment of acquittal under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20. She conceded that she was a prohibited possessor but argued, inter alia, that the state had failed to prove that she exercised dominion and control over the pistol. The court denied Moran's motion and the defense rested.
¶6 After considering the evidence, the jury found Moran guilty. The court entered judgment on the verdict, suspended the imposition of sentence, and placed Moran on probation for a three-year term, to run concurrently with her previous probation term. Moran timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).
¶7 Moran contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her conviction for misconduct involving weapons. We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15, 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts and resolve all conflicts in the evidence against Moran. See State v. Girdler, 138 Ariz. 482, 488, 675 P.2d 1301, 1307 (1983). We do not reweigh the evidence or ...