from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No.
CR2014-127252-001 The Honorable Dean M. Fink, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Adele Ponce
Counsel for Appellee
W. Dean Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Thomas W. Dean Counsel
Office of Thomas C. Holz, Bisbee By Thomas C. Holz Counsel
for Amicus Curiae National Organization for the Reform of
Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Tucson By David J.
Euchner, Sarah L. Mayhew Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona
Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the opinion of the
court, in which Judge Patricia A. Orozco (retired) and Judge
Jon W. Thompson joined.
Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas, a medical-marijuana cardholder
("cardholder"), appeals his conviction for
possession of marijuana. His appeal challenges the
constitutionality of A.R.S. § 15-108(A), which modifies
the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ("AMMA") by
criminalizing possession of medical marijuana by cardholders
on public college and university campuses. The AMMA does not
prevent property owners (including the state) from
prohibiting medical marijuana use on their property. But
because A.R.S. § 15-108(A) criminalizes medical
marijuana use, it does not further the purpose of the AMMA.
Accordingly, § 15-108(A) violates the Voter Protection
Act ("VPA") and we hold it unconstitutional. We do
not, however, hold that public colleges and universities are
required to allow marijuana use, even by cardholders, on
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
An Arizona State University police officer arrested Maestas
for obstructing a public thoroughfare after observing him
sitting in the road in front of his dormitory on the
university campus. He searched Maestas and found a valid
Arizona medical marijuana card in his wallet. The officer
asked Maestas if he had marijuana in his dorm room, and
Maestas admitted he did. The officer obtained a search
warrant, searched the dorm room, and found two envelopes
containing 0.4 grams of marijuana, an allowable amount for a
cardholder under A.R.S. § 36-2801(1)(a)(i).
Maestas was charged with obstructing a highway or other
public thoroughfare, a class 3 misdemeanor, and possession or
use of marijuana, a class 6 felony. Before trial, Maestas
moved to dismiss the possession charge, arguing that as a
cardholder, his possession of marijuana was lawful under the
AMMA. The state opposed the motion, arguing that A.R.S.
§ 15-108(A) prohibits even cardholders from possessing
marijuana on public college and university campuses. After
the superior court denied the motion, the state amended the
indictment to designate the drug charge a misdemeanor.
At his bench trial, Maestas was convicted on both counts. The
superior court suspended sentencing and placed Maestas on
probation for one year. The court also imposed a fine on the
drug charge. Maestas appeals his conviction for the drug
contends his conviction on the drug charge should be reversed
because the AMMA allows him to possess marijuana in his dorm
room. He argues that § 15-108(A), which removes the
criminal protections of the AMMA on public college and
university campuses, is unconstitutional. We review questions
of statutory interpretation and constitutional issues de
novo. State v. Dann,220 Ariz. 351, 369, ¶ 96
(2009). Statutes are presumed to be constitutional.
Indus. Comm'n v. Brewer,231 Ariz. 46, 49,
¶ 11 (App. 2012). Maestas, as the challenging ...