State v. Becerra
| Decision Date | 30 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0258,2 CA-CR 2018-0258 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JUAN CARLOS BECERRA, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge
AFFIRMED
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel
By Kathryn A. Damstra, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson
Counsel for Appellee
Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
¶1 Juan Becerra appeals from his convictions and sentences for first-degree felony murder, kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery, and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Specifically, Becerra challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant and its allowing the admission of a photograph. We affirm.
¶2 On October 14, 2015, Becerra's girlfriend, Yesenia F., and two other women confronted N.T. about telling other people that Yesenia's boyfriend, whom N.T. only knew as "Juan," was a "jacker" who robs drug traffickers. The women were driving in Yesenia's Cadillac on the southwest side of Tucson when they were pulled over by a "black Impala or Malibu with red and blue lights flashing in the grill." The man N.T. knew as "Juan" and as Yesenia's boyfriend emerged from the car, pistol-whipped N.T. and placed a gun to her head, pulling the trigger. The gun did not fire. N.T.'s purse, cash, pills, and cell phone were then stolen. Three days later, someone in a black Chevrolet Impala with red and blue lights and a siren tried to pull over a man driving on the southwest side of Tucson. Eventually, the Impala sped by the man, who saw that its driver was a young man; the man called 9-1-1.1
¶3 On October 19, police officers responded to a 9-1-1 call and found G.C. deceased in the passenger seat of his Honda with a gunshot wound to his head. G.C.'s friend, L.A., told police the following: L.A. had been in the backseat of the car, with G.C. in the passenger seat, and anotherfriend, P.M., driving the Honda on the southwest side of Tucson when the car was pulled over by a "dark possibly black [Chevrolet] Impala or Malibu" that had red and blue lights. When the Honda pulled over, a white Dodge truck pulled in front of it, blocking it from escape; several masked men came out of the Chevrolet and the Dodge, and pointed guns at the occupants of the Honda. The men removed P.M. from the driver's seat, and one of them fired at least once, fatally wounding G.C. One of the men then got into the Honda, pointed his gun at L.A., drove the car out into the desert, interrogated L.A. about a "stash house," and eventually told him to run into the desert. After the men left, L.A. returned and drove the Honda, with G.C. still in the passenger seat, to a nearby store and called 9-1-1. The police found a 7.62 shell casing in the Honda.
¶4 P.M. generally corroborated L.A.'s account, saying they had been pulled over by a dark sedan with red and blue flashing lights, blocked by a white Dodge truck, and armed, masked men dressed in black had emerged from the sedan and truck and surrounded the Honda. P.M. heard a gunshot and was hit in the face by flying glass. One of the men pointed a gun at her, asked her who she was, and told her to run away.
¶5 G.C.'s sister later told police that G.C. had been involved in the illegal drug business and that she believed he had a drug deal that evening. Officers subsequently received a tip that the black Impala used in these incidents was parked at a rural address on the southwest side of Tucson. Detectives met with the occupants of the home, who let them onto the property, where they found a black Impala with non-factory grill cut-outs and wiring consistent with grill lights having been installed and removed. The occupants told detectives their family member, Rafael M., drove the Impala, it had arrived at the property in the past couple of days, and it belonged to Rafael's friend. Police then executed a search warrant for the address and found 7.62 ammunition in Rafael's bedroom.
¶6 Police later obtained a search warrant for Becerra's house in connection with a series of crimes involving individuals using vehicles with red and blue flashing lights and a siren to pose as police officers and conduct traffic stops. When officers served the warrant, Becerra, Yesenia, Rafael, and several other people were present. Officers found several handguns and rifles,2 ammunition, magazines, a holster, and a manual for a 7.62 drum magazine. Police also found the title for a white Dodge pickuptruck owned by Yesenia's sister and a rental agreement showing the house was being rented by Becerra and Yesenia.
¶7 Becerra was charged with first-degree felony murder, kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery, and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Rafael entered into a plea agreement and testified for the state. After a jury trial, Becerra was convicted as charged and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which is life in prison without the possibility of release for at least twenty-five years.
¶8 This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, § 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A).
¶9 On appeal, Becerra argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence and his motion to preclude a photograph of firearms found on a cell phone officers had taken from inside his pocket.
¶10 Becerra contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his home because there was no probable cause to support the search warrant, the warrant was invalid because it lacked specificity and reasonable particularity, and the good-faith exception did not apply. When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, viewing it in the light most favorable to upholding the court's ruling, State v. Manuel, 229 Ariz. 1, ¶ 11 (2011), and will not reverse a trial court's ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion, State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, ¶ 26 (2016). "In reviewing the trial court's decision, we are mindful that its 'task [wa]s to determine whether the totality of the circumstances indicates a substantial basis for the magistrate's decision' to issue a warrant." State v. Crowley, 202 Ariz. 80, ¶ 7 (App. 2002) (quoting State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 272 (1996)). And, because we presume the warrant is valid, "it is the defendant's burden to prove otherwise." Id.
¶11 Before trial, Becerra moved to suppress all evidence seized at his house pursuant to "a constitutionally invalid warrant." He argued there was no probable cause to connect him and his house to the assault of N.T. or the murder of G.C. and the warrant "did not describe with sufficientspecificity and accuracy the things to be seized." He also argued the good-faith exception did not apply because the affidavit "so lacked indicia of probable cause . . . that it rendered official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable," and the warrant was facially deficient because it did not particularly describe the items to be seized.
¶12 The affidavit submitted in support of the warrant states that N.T. told police that Yesenia and her boyfriend "Juan" were two of the people who had assaulted and robbed her. N.T. reported she had been riding in Yesenia's Cadillac when "Juan" pulled them over in a black Chevrolet sedan with red and blue flashing lights in the front grill. N.T. also told police she was assaulted because she had been telling other people that "Juan" was a "jacker."
¶13 With respect to G.C.'s murder, the police knew the Honda had also been pulled over by a black Chevrolet sedan with red and blue lights in the grill, and L.A. had been interrogated by the assailants about the location of a drug stash house. G.C.'s sister told police he was involved in the drug trade and had made statements leading her to believe he was participating in a drug transaction on the night he was killed. Through its investigation, the police also knew Becerra and Yesenia shared children. Police observed a Cadillac registered to Yesenia matching the description N.T. gave police parked at a house for which Becerra had registered for electrical services.
¶14 Based on that information, officers believed Becerra's house may have contained evidence of N.T.'s assault, including the weapon used, N.T.'s stolen belongings, and information connecting Becerra to the black Impala. The warrant was issued and authorized the seizure of "[a]ny property belonging to the victims in this case to include but not limited to[] purse, wallet, money, vehicle ignition devices, keys, and cellular telephones."
¶15 At the hearing on Becerra's motion to suppress, he argued there was nothing in the affidavit connecting him to Rafael or the murder of G.C. and the state's reliance on N.T.'s report that "Juan" was driving a vehicle very similar to the one used in the murder was "completely wrong" and "not supported by the actual facts." Becerra also asserted the warrant lacked probable cause because it did not sufficiently specify what the police were looking for in connection with the assault of N.T. and the police did not have "any information or any reason to believe that anything related to that [N.T.] incident would be found in [Becerra's] house."
¶16 The state argued the presence of Yesenia's car at a house for which Becerra had electricity in his name connected him to the assault of N.T. The state also asserted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial