State v. Cisneros

103 Arizona Cases Digest 10

534 P.3d 932

The STATE of Arizona, Appellee,

v.Maria Chavez CISNEROS, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 2022-0125

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Filed August 14, 2023

Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney, By Thomas C. McDermott, Florence, Counsel for Appellee

Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Tucson, By Joseph Falcon-Freeman, Counsel for Appellant

Judge Kelly authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Brearcliffe concurred and Judge Eckerstrom specially concurred.

KELLY, Judge:

¶1 Maria Cisneros appeals from the trial court's order denying her petition to expunge records related to her conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. Cisneros contends the court erred by finding her records ineligible for expungement under A.R.S. § 36-2862. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 In 2014, Cisneros was arrested for theft and searched incident to her arrest. According to the release questionnaire prepared by the arresting officer, three small baggies containing methamphetamine were found in the right front pocket of her pants, and a marijuana cigarette was found inside a plastic container in her left front pocket.¹ She was charged with possession of methamphetamine, possession of marijuana, and possession of "drug paraphernalia, to wit: baggies and container used to store methamphetamine and/or marijuana."

¶3 Cisneros pled guilty to the drug paraphernalia charge in exchange for the state's dismissal of the remaining charges. Pursuant to a written agreement, she pled guilty to an amended count of "[p]ossession of drug paraphernalia (to wit: baggies and/or container used to store methamphetamine or marijuana) ...." (Emphasis added.) At her change of plea hearing, Cisneros agreed with the following factual basis for the offense: "Ms. Cisneros possessed a baggie whose purpose was to hold illegal drugs, mainly methamphetamine. She was aware of the purpose and held it voluntarily." The trial court accepted the plea, suspended the imposition of sentence, and placed Cisneros on a three-year term of supervised probation.

¶4 In 2022, following the enactment of Proposition 207, which provides for expungement of records relating to certain marijuana-related offenses, see A.R.S. §§ 36-2850 to 36-2865, Cisneros filed a petition to expunge the records of her drug paraphernalia conviction. The state opposed the petition, asserting she pled guilty to a drug paraphernalia charge "related to methamphetamine and marijuana" and therefore did not qualify for expungement.

¶5 At a hearing on the petition, Cisneros argued that possession of drug paraphernalia is a unitary offense and the paraphernalia at issue related to both methamphetamine and marijuana. Accordingly, she reasoned that her records should be expunged because her paraphernalia "related to marijuana."

¶6 In response, the state cited both the language of the written plea agreement and the factual basis Cisneros provided at her change of plea hearing—the latter of which included no mention of marijuana—to contend the paraphernalia was not governed by the marijuana expungement statute.² Citing both the plea agreement and the change of plea transcript, the trial court denied the petition. The court explained, "[Cisneros] acknowledges that that baggie was mainly used for methamphetamine. As a result, I don't believe that it would be appropriate for this court to allow for this conviction to be set aside based on the marijuana expungement statutes."

¶7 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, 13-4033(A)(3), and 36-2862(F).

Discussion

¶8 Cisneros argues on appeal that her paraphernalia conviction was a unitary offense, was "related to" marijuana, and should have been expunged pursuant to § 36-2862. She also argues the trial court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof under § 36-2862(B)(3) by denying her petition even after the state had "acknowledged that the conviction did relate to both marijuana and methamphetamine." We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation, see State v. Estrada , 201 Ariz. 247, ¶ 15, 34 P.3d 356 (2001), but we review the court's denial of the petition for an abuse of discretion, see State v. Hall , 234 Ariz. 374, ¶ 3, 322 P.3d 191 (App. 2014).

¶9 "Proposition 207, a voter-passed initiative, legalized certain conduct related to the recreational use, cultivation, and sale of marijuana and provided for expungement of records for specific marijuana-related offenses." State v. Ibarra , 254 Ariz. 320, ¶ 6, 522 P.3d 1111 (App. 2022) ; see also §§ 36-2850 to 36-2865. When interpreting statutes adopted by initiative, our primary objective is "to give effect to the intent of the electorate." State v. Gomez , 212 Ariz. 55, ¶ 11, 127 P.3d 873 (2006). "The most reliable indicator of that intent is the language of the statute, and if it is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning and the inquiry ends." State v. Jones , 246 Ariz. 452, ¶ 5, 440 P.3d 1139 (2019). However, ambiguity exists when a term "is open to multiple reasonable interpretations." Glazer v. State , 244 Ariz. 612, ¶ 12, 423 P.3d 993 (2018). We must therefore first look to the initiative's plain language. See Jones , 246 Ariz. 452, ¶ 5, 440 P.3d 1139.

¶10 Section 36-2862 provides in pertinent part:

A. [A]n individual who was arrested for, charged with, adjudicated or convicted by trial or plea of, or sentenced for, any of the following offenses ... may petition the court to have the record of that arrest, charge, adjudication, conviction or sentence expunged:

1. Possessing, consuming or transporting two and one-half ounces or less of marijuana, of which not more than twelve and one-half grams was in the form of marijuana concentrate.

2. Possessing, transporting, cultivating or processing not more than six marijuana plants at the individual's primary residence for personal use.

3. Possessing, using or transporting paraphernalia relating to the cultivation, manufacture, processing or consumption of marijuana.

The phrase "relating to" used in subsection (A)(3) is neither clear nor unambiguous. Cisneros urges those words should be interpreted to mean that a conviction for possession of paraphernalia involving multiple drugs is expungable under this statute so long as one of those drugs is marijuana. We disagree.

¶11 When interpreting statutory provisions, we give words "their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended." Arizona ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd ., 243 Ariz. 539, ¶ 7, 416 P.3d 803 (2018) (quoting State v. Miller , 100 Ariz. 288, 296, 413 P.2d 757 (1966) ). Accordingly, "[w]e interpret statutory language in view of the entire text, considering the context." Nicaise v. Sundaram , 245 Ariz. 566, ¶ 11, 432 P.3d 925 (2019) ; see also Adams v. Comm'n on App. Ct. Appts. , 227 Ariz. 128, ¶ 34, 254 P.3d 367 (2011) ("[I]t is a ‘fundamental principle of statutory construction (and, indeed, of language itself) that the meaning of a word cannot be determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which it is used.’ " (quoting Deal v. United States , 508 U.S. 129, 132, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Davis , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019) )). We therefore determine the meaning of the words "relating to" as used in § 36-2862(A)(3) in context, and "we interpret and apply statutory language in a way that will avoid an untenable or irrational result." State v. Estrada , 201 Ariz. 247, ¶ 16, 34 P.3d 356 (2001).

¶12 "Relating" can mean, among other things, "to show or establish logical or causal connection between." Relating , Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary (last visited August 7, 2023). However, when read in the broader context of Proposition 207 and its stated purpose, as well as our existing law, the phrase "relating to" cannot carry a meaning as broad as Cisneros suggests. The purposes stated for Proposition 207 include "[f]acilitating the expungement and sealing of records ... predicated on conduct made lawful by this act." See Text of Proposed Amendment § 7(7), Proposition 207 ("Smart and Safe Arizona Act"), 2019 Ballot Propositions. The conduct made lawful by Proposition 207 was strictly limited to one drug—marijuana.

¶13 Further, as amended after the approval of Proposition 207, § 13-3415(B) proscribes the possession of drug paraphernalia, "[e]xcept as provided in § 36-2852 and § 36-2853, subsection C," and designates the offense as a class six felony. See 2021 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 222, § 5. Section 36-2852 allows individuals to lawfully possess paraphernalia "relating to the ... consumption of marijuana," and § 36-2853(C) reduces the public smoking of marijuana to a petty offense. Thus, possession of drug paraphernalia outside of these exceptions is still a felony.

¶14 As Cisneros correctly points out, this court has determined that possession of drug paraphernalia is a unitary offense and that the allowable "unit of prosecution" under § 13-3415 is "the act of possessing drug paraphernalia." State v. Soza , 249 Ariz. 13, ¶ 23, 464 P.3d 696 (App. 2020). Cisneros argues from this that the words "relating to" in § 36-2862 must be read expansively—to allow expungement of a paraphernalia conviction if it involves any marijuana paraphernalia.

¶15 However, our supreme court recently construed the words "relating to" in resolving a challenge to a voter initiative adopting surcharges on rental cars, and it declined to adopt an interpretation that would "encompass revenues that voters clearly did not intend to be covered." Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue , 246 Ariz. 89, ¶ 22, 434 P.3d 1168 (2019). The court agreed with the plaintiffs that the words " ‘related to’ could have an almost unlimited reach if construed too broadly" and concluded that the...