Not for Publication – Rule 111(c); Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20121377002 The Honorable Paul E. Tang, Judge Pro Tempore
Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General by Joseph T. Maziarz, Section Chief Counsel, Phoenix and Amy Pignatella Cain, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender by David J. Euchner and Sarah A. Bullard, Assistant Public Defenders, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Espinosa concurred.
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Aaron Arnoldi was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a dangerous drug for sale, and possession of drug paraphernalia, all of which he committed while on release for another felony case. He was sentenced to concurrent, presumptive, enhanced prison terms, the longest of which was 17.75 years. On appeal, he claims the trial court erred in instructing the jury on accomplice liability and in finding he had two historical prior felony convictions. For the following reasons, we vacate the criminal restitution order but otherwise affirm Arnoldi's convictions and sentences.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 "We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict[s], resolving all reasonable inferences against the defendant." State v. Almaguer, 232 Ariz. 190, ¶ 2, 303 P.3d 84, 86 (App. 2013). In April 2012, police conducted surveillance on a house in Tucson on Roger Road. During their surveillance, officers observed Arnoldi in the carport of the home. Another person, D.B., was also in the house at the time.
¶3 A man named J.A. entered the house, stayed for a brief period, then left. Police stopped him in his car shortly thereafter. J.A. was found to have methamphetamine and empty clear baggies. Upon questioning, he told the officers he had purchased the drugs from Arnoldi.
¶4 Police officers then obtained a search warrant for the house based on J.A.'s statements. When they conducted the search, D.B. and Arnoldi were the only people in the house. A witness testified that Arnoldi was residing at the house and had been living there "[o]ff and on for a few years." During the search, officers noted that only one bedroom contained a bed, along with a single "grouping of clothing" that "all seemed to be for an adult male and approximately the same size." In that bedroom, police found methamphetamine, plastic baggies, digital scales, and Alprazolam pills, as well as a bill from Tucson Electric Power with Arnoldi's name on it.
¶5 Arnoldi was convicted as described above. This timely appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 13-4033.
Accomplice Liability Instruction
¶6 At trial, the court gave an instruction on accomplice liability at the state's request and over Arnoldi's objection. Arnoldi claims this instruction was improper because "[t]he facts . . . simply do not support accomplice liability" and "neither counsel argued that Arnoldi was an accomplice." We ...