from the Superior Court in Pinal County. No.
S1100CR201300228. The Honorable Bradley M. Soos, Judge.
Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Joseph T. Maziarz,
Section Chief Counsel, Phoenix, By Kathryn A. Damstra,
Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, Counsel for Appellee.
Gordon Pá nuco, Tucson, Counsel for Appellant.
Judge Vásquez authored the opinion of the Court, in
which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Miller concurred.
VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
Following a jury trial, Rock Ingram was convicted of
misconduct involving weapons. On appeal, he argues the trial
court erred in denying his request for a peremptory change of
judge pursuant to Rule 10.2, Ariz. R. Crim. P. In addressing
this issue, we first must determine whether the court's
ruling may be challenged on direct appeal or must be reviewed
in a special action. Ingram also contends the state presented
insufficient evidence to support his conviction. For the
following reasons, we affirm.
and Procedural Background
We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in
the light most favorable to upholding Ingram's
conviction. See State v. Almaguer, 232
Ariz. 190, ¶ 2,
303 P.3d 84, 86 (App. 2013). In August 2012, officers
received information that Ingram, who had an outstanding
felony arrest warrant from Wisconsin, was at a house in
Maricopa. Because the U.S. Marshals Service had warned that
Ingram was possibly armed with a .40-caliber pistol and
" would use it to elude capture," the officers
called for backup. They then entered the house, detained
Ingram, and found a .40-caliber bullet in his front left
N.H., who was renting the house, told the officers that
Ingram was staying there, along with N.B. and her children.
N.B. informed the officers that there was a gun in the house,
and N.H. consented to a search. With N.B.'s assistance,
the officers found a .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol in a
briefcase, which was located in an empty television box in
the master-bedroom closet. The pistol had seven rounds in the
magazine and one loaded in the chamber. The briefcase also
contained a box of .40-caliber ammunition, a gun-cleaning
kit, and an empty prescription pill bottle belonging to
A grand jury indicted Ingram for one count of misconduct
involving weapons by knowingly possessing a deadly weapon as
a prohibited possessor. The week before trial, the case was
reassigned to the trial judge by an " immediately
distributed" order dated January 29, 2015. Ingram filed
a notice of change of judge as a matter of right pursuant to
Rule 10.2 on February 2, 2015, the day before trial. The
court denied the notice as untimely.
Ingram was convicted as charged, and the trial court
sentenced him to a presumptive term of imprisonment of 2.5
years. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
A.R.S. § § 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and
Ingram contends the trial court erred by denying his request
for a peremptory change of judge pursuant to Rule 10.2. The
state responds that " this court lacks jurisdiction to
consider [Ingram's] argument" because he should have
challenged the court's ruling by special
action. We conclude that Ingram's
challenge to the court's ruling is not reviewable on
Rule 10.2(a) provides: " In any criminal case, each side
is entitled as a matter of right to a change of judge."
To exercise this right, a party must file a notice of change
of judge signed by counsel, avowing that the request is made
in good faith. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.2(b). The rule provides
time frames for filing the notice depending on the stage of
the proceedings. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 10.2(c). The
question presented here is whether a ruling on a Rule 10.2
notice of ...