State v. Padilla

• Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 24-0071
• Decision Date: 12 December 2024
• Parties: STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ARMANDO PADILLA, JR., Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ARMANDO PADILLA, JR., Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0071

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

December 12, 2024

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa CountyNo CR2022-030714-001 The Honorable Laura J. Giaquinto, Judge Pro Tempore

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Eliza C YbarraCounsel for Appellee

Law Offices of Kamille Dean, P.C., Phoenix By Kamille R. DeanCounsel for Appellant

Judge Daniel J. Kiley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

KILEY JUDGE

¶1Armando Padilla, Jr.("Padilla") appeals his convictions for aggravated driving under the influence ("DUI"), arguing that the superior court erred in overruling certain evidentiary objections and in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure("Rule") 20.We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict seeState v. Thompson, 252 Ariz. 279, 287, ¶ 2 n. 3 (2022), the evidence shows that in May 2021, Padilla and his wife, Melissa Padilla("Melissa")^[1], who lived in Mesa, had been arguing for several days when, on the evening of May 20, Melissa packed up some of Padilla's clothes, put them in their white Chevrolet Suburban, and told him to leave.Padilla departed in the Suburban.Because of a past DUI conviction, Padilla was prohibited from driving a motor vehicle that was not equipped with an ignition interlock device ("IID").SeeA.R.S. § 28-3319.The Suburban was not equipped with an IID.

¶3 The next morning, Melissa left home "a little after 8:00" to go to work.While stopped at a red light, Melissa looked behind her and saw Padilla driving the Suburban.A few minutes later, Melissa received "an alert" on her phone's location-tracking app indicating that Padilla was at their house.Melissa turned around and drove back home.

¶4 Padilla's next-door neighbor R.L. later testified that he was standing in front of his house at around 8:15 a.m. when he saw Padilla "in his Suburban driving up and down the street very slowly, back and forth."R.L. then went back inside his house.

¶5 As Melissa pulled up to her house, she"saw [Padilla] pull into the driveway . . . and get out" of the Suburban.As she later stated, she"could see he was drunk."Melissa got out of her car and called out to Padilla, telling him to leave.When Padilla walked around to the back of the house, Melissa got back in her car and called 911.The 911 call was placed at 8:38 a.m.

¶6 Melissa told the 911 dispatcher that Padilla was "drunk" and "trying to get into [their] home."When the 911 dispatcher asked, "What kind of vehicle did he show up in?", Melissa responded, "In a white Chevy Suburban.It's parked in the driveway right now."

¶7 While Melissa was on the phone, Padilla approached her car and banged on the window.Startled, Melissa screamed and told the dispatcher that Padilla was "hitting [her] vehicle" and "trying to break the windows."Padilla then walked away.

¶8 At about "8:30" or "8:35" a.m., "roughly 10 [or] 15 minutes" after he had seen Padilla driving the Suburban, R.L. heard a knock at his front door.He opened the door to find Padilla "[s]taggering,""mumbling," and asking "if [R.L.] could hide him because the police were coming."When R.L. refused, Padilla left.

¶9 Shortly thereafter, R.L. approached Melissa's car while she was still on the phone with the 911 dispatcher.The following exchange was captured on the recording of the 911 call:

R.L.: He wants me to hide him.But I don't -- What's going on?I don't want to get involved.Is there something I can do or -

Melissa: No, the police are on the way.He's drunk.

R.L.: I know, I seen that.I saw him driving by here like ten times.

¶10 Melissa remained on the phone with the 911 dispatcher until police officers arrived at the scene between 8:48 and 8:53 a.m.When officers arrived, the Suburban was parked in the driveway, Melissa was still sitting in her car parked in the street, and Padilla was sitting on a brick wall in front of the home.The officers observed "obvious signs" of Padilla's impairment, e.g., a "lack" of "stability" and "slurred speech."Officer DeMarco approached Padilla and stated, "You're drunk."Padilla nodded and replied, "Yep."

¶11 Officer Pellegrino then asked Padilla, "How much alcohol have you had to drink?"Padilla replied, "A lot."Pellegrino asked him to quantify his alcohol consumption, but Padilla replied that he was unable to.Pellegrino then asked, "Are we talking, like, ten drinks?"Padilla answered, "Yeah, ten drinks."Pellegrino asked what Padilla drank, and he answered, "Vodka."Pellegrino asked, "Was it a shot?" to which Padilla answered, "Yeah, it was a shot."Pellegrino asked, "What do you think, like, what is that, like, four ounces?" to which Padilla nodded his head and answered, "Yeah."Pellegrino then asked, "What was the time of your last drink?"Padilla answered, "An hour."

¶12 Officer DeMarco conducted a pat down of Padilla and found car keys in his pocket.Padilla said the keys were to the Suburban, but denied that he had driven it, or any other vehicle, that morning.When asked how he got to the house that day, Padilla claimed that his sisterAlyssa Padilla("Alyssa") had dropped him off.When Padilla urged DeMarco to call Alyssa to verify his claim, the officer stepped away to call her.Moments later, DeMarco returned.The following exchange was captured on the recording from DeMarco's body worn camera ("BWC"):

Padilla: She don't want to talk to me?

DeMarco: Who?

Padilla: My mom.

DeMarco: No, I was talking to Alyssa.

Padilla: Oh, were you?

DeMarco: Yeah, you know what she told me.

Padilla: Yeah.

DeMarco: Why do you want to lie to me?Come on, brother.

At that point, Padilla turned around and raised his hands over his head.When DeMarco told him that he was "not under arrest yet," Padilla replied, "Yeah . . . might as well."

¶13 Officer Kuntz administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test ("HGN") at 9:43 a.m., "observed all six clues of nystagmus" which, he later testified, indicates alcohol impairment.

¶14 Padilla was arrested and, after being read his Miranda rights^[2], consented to a blood draw.The blood sample was taken at 10:43 a.m. and was examined by forensic scientist Alicia Miller("Miller"), who determined that the alcohol level in the blood sample was .267.

¶15The State charged Padilla with two class 4 felonies: aggravated driving while impaired to the slightest degree in violation of A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(1) and -1383(A)(4)(the "A(1) charge") and aggravated driving with a BAC of .08% or more within two hours of driving in violation of A.R.S. §§ 28-1381(A)(2) and -1383(A)(4)(the "A(2) charge").

¶16 At trial, R.L. testified about his observations of Padilla driving that morning and their conversation when Padilla knocked on his front door.He also testified that at no point that morning did he see Padilla in possession of any bottle, can, or other container that appeared to be an alcoholic beverage.

¶17 Officer Kuntz testified about the HGN test that he conducted.He also testified, based on his training and experience, about driving cues that indicate impairment, noting that one such cue is driving "under the speed limit."

¶18 Officer Pellegrino testified that when he was called to the scene that day, he spoke with Padilla, noting that Padilla's eyes were "bloodshot," his speech was "very slurred," and he had "a hard time . . . standing up straight."Pellegrino added that Padilla "just kept asking me, 'take me to jail.'"Pellegrino testified that, in response to his questions, Padilla reported having "ten drinks" that morning, elaborating that he consumed ten "four-ounce shots" of vodka and drank the last one at "8:30 in the morning."He further testified, however, that when he again asked Padilla about his alcohol consumption after the blood draw, Padilla claimed to have had only "two" drinks.

¶19 Finally, Pellegrino testified that he had contact with Padilla over a period of at least two hours that morning, and that the signs of impairment that Padilla exhibited "stayed relatively the same."

¶20The State also called Officer DeMarco, who testified about his observations and conversation with Padilla at the scene.When asked about Padilla's claim at the scene to have consumed ten shots of vodka, DeMarco testified that he did not observe any bottles, cans, or other alcoholic beverage containers in Padilla's possession or on the ground.

¶21 After counsel completed their examination of the witness, the court invited jurors to submit proposed written questions.SeeAriz. R. Crim. P. 18.6(e).A juror submitted a question reading, "Is a witness seeing someone drive while intoxicated enough probable cause for an arrest?"Padilla objected to the question being put to the witness, arguing, inter alia, that the question called for a legal conclusion and risked confusing the jury.The court overruled the objection and read the question to the witness.DeMarco answered, "Yes, it will."Padilla declined to conduct any followup examination.

¶22 Miller testified that she performed a retrograde^[3] extrapolation of the BAC detected in Padilla's blood sample, accounting for Padilla's gender and weight, and determined that, as of 10:14 a.m Padilla's BAC would have been in the range of .271-.281. When asked by defense counsel if it was "possible for a person to drink enough vodka" within fifteen or twenty minutes "to have a blood alcohol concentration of .267 two hours later," Miller acknowledged that it was ...