Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Maestas

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

April 6, 2017

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
v.
ANDRE LEE JUWAUN MAESTAS, Appellant.

         Appeal 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

          Thomas W. Dean Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Thomas W. Dean Counsel for Appellant

          Law Office of Thomas C. Holz, Bisbee By Thomas C. Holz Counsel for Amicus Curiae National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

          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.

          OPINION

          SWANN, Judge

         ¶1 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 campus.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         ¶2 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).

         ¶3 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.

         ¶4 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 charge.

         DISCUSSION

         ¶5Maestas 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, ΒΆ 11 (App. 2012). Maestas, as the challenging ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.