State v. Santillanes

541 P.3d 1150

STATE of Arizona, Appellant,

v.Daniel Louis SANTILLANES, Appellee.

No. CR-23-0042-PR

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Filed January 23, 2024

Rachel Mitchell, Maricopa County Attorney, Krista Wood (argued), Deputy County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona

Derek Debus (argued), Craig Rosenstein, Kenneth Misajet, Rule 39(c) Certified Law Student, Stone Rose Law PLLC, Scottsdale, Attorneys for Daniel Louis Santillanes

Sarah L. Mayhew (argued), Tucson City Public Defender's Office, Tucson, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice; and Julie R. Gunnigle, Law Office of Julie Gunnigle, PLLC, Scottsdale, Attorney for Amicus Curiae National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

JUSTICE KING authored the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, and JUSTICES BOLICK, LOPEZ, BEENE, and PELANDER (Retired) joined.^*

JUSTICE KING, Opinion of the Court:

¶1 In 2011, Daniel Santillanes pleaded guilty to one felony count of facilitation to commit sale or transportation of marijuana. Nine years later, Arizona voters adopted Proposition 207, known as the Smart and Safe Arizona Act (the "Act"). The Act authorizes a trial court to expunge an individual's records pertaining to certain marijuana-related offenses. See A.R.S. § 36-2862. After the Act's effective date, Santillanes filed a petition seeking the expungement of all records relating to his felony marijuana conviction and the restoration of his civil rights, including the right to possess a firearm. The trial court granted his petition.

¶2 The sole issue before us is whether the State has the right to appeal the trial court's order granting Santillanes's request for expungement and restoration of his civil rights, or whether it may seek relief only through a petition for special action. We conclude that the State has the right to appeal this expungement order under A.R.S. § 13-4032(4).

BACKGROUND

¶3 In 2011, the State charged Santillanes with (1) possession of "four pounds or more" of marijuana for sale, a class 2 felony; (2) possession or use of "less than two pounds" of marijuana, a class 6 felony; (3) possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony; and (4) possession or use of narcotic drugs (cannabis), a class 4 felony. Santillanes pleaded guilty to an amended count one: facilitation to commit sale or transportation of marijuana, a class 6 designated felony ("2011 conviction"). As part of his guilty plea, the State dismissed counts two, three, and four. At a hearing, counsel for Santillanes stated the following factual basis for Santillanes's guilty plea: "On or about February 17, 2011, Santillanes did provide the means or opportunity to another to sell or transport marijuana." The State indicated that it did not "have anything to add or correct." The trial court accepted Santillanes's guilty plea and placed him on two years’ probation with a three-month jail term as a condition of probation. The court also ordered him to complete twenty-four hours of community service, participate in substance abuse counseling, and pay various fees and fines. Santillanes subsequently completed the term and conditions of probation.

¶4 The Act permits either an individual, or a "prosecuting agency ... on behalf of any individual who was prosecuted by that prosecuting agency," to petition the court to have the individual's records of certain marijuana-related offenses expunged. § 36-2862(A), (I). The prosecuting agency may object to the petition and request a hearing. § 36-2862(B)(1), (2). The Act instructs that the court "shall grant the petition unless the prosecuting agency establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is not eligible for expungement." § 36-2862(B)(3).

¶5 In 2021, Santillanes filed a petition requesting that the court expunge "the record of arrest, charge, adjudication, conviction and sentence relating to [his 2011] conviction," citing § 36-2862. In addition, Santillanes asked the court to "restore all of his civil rights—including the right to possess a firearm."

¶6 The State objected to Santillanes's petition, arguing that the weight of the marijuana involved in his offense exceeded the 2.5-ounce limit set forth in § 36-2862(A). See § 36-2862(A)(1) (authorizing the expungement of certain records of the "arrest, charge, adjudication, conviction or sentence" for "[p]ossessing, consuming or transporting two and one-half ounces or less of marijuana"). The State claimed that "[t]his case involved over 10 pounds of marijuana" and, citing the original charging documents, presentence report, and police report, pointed out that Santillanes was originally "charged with possessing an amount over four pounds."

¶7 The trial court granted Santillanes's petition for expungement without a hearing. The court also restored Santillanes's civil rights, including his right to possess a firearm. The State appealed.

¶8 The court of appeals held that "the State does not have statutory authority to appeal an order granting expungement but may seek review via a special action." State v. Santillanes , 254 Ariz. 301, 304 ¶ 1, 522 P.3d 691, 694 (App. 2022). The court reasoned that § 13-4032 "sets forth the exclusive grounds on which the State may appeal in criminal cases," but the subsections upon which the State relied— § 13-4032(1), (4), and (7) —do not give the State the right to appeal an expungement order. Id. at 305–06 ¶¶ 9–17, 522 P.3d at 695–96 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Hansen , 237 Ariz. 61, 64 ¶ 5, 345 P.3d 116, 119 (App. 2015) ). Further, although § 36-2862 provides "a right to appeal from orders denying expungement," it "provides no avenue for a petitioner, or anyone, to appeal an order granting an expungement." Id. at 306 ¶¶ 18–19, 522 P.3d at 696.

¶9 Nonetheless, the court of appeals exercised its discretion to review the State's appeal as a special action. Id. at 306–07 ¶¶ 20–21, 522 P.3d at 696–97. The court determined that the trial court erred by (1) failing to hold a hearing on Santillanes's petition, and (2) not making adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law in the expungement order. Id. at 308–09 ¶¶ 30, 35, 522 P.3d at 698–99. The court of appeals vacated the trial court's expungement order and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 309 ¶ 36, 522 P.3d at 699.

¶10 The State filed a petition for review on the sole issue of whether § 13-4032(4) allows it to appeal an order granting a petition for expungement pursuant to § 36-2862. We granted review because there are conflicting court of appeals’ decisions on this issue and it is one of statewide importance. Compare Santillanes , 254 Ariz. at 305–06 ¶¶ 11–15, 522 P.3d at 695–96, with State v. Wanna , 1 CA-CR 21-0438, 2023 WL 2318465, at *2 n.3 (Ariz. App. Mar. 2, 2023) (mem. decision) ("Because the expungement of a conviction affects a substantial right of the state, we respectfully depart from the holding in Santillanes ."). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution.

DISCUSSION

¶11 "We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo." State v. Jones , 246 Ariz. 452, 454 ¶ 5, 440 P.3d 1139, 1141 (2019) (quoting Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt , 237 Ariz. 119, 122 ¶ 6, 347 P.3d 136, 139 (2015) ). Where the language of a statute passed by voter initiative "is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning and the inquiry ends." Id.

A. Does A.R.S. § 36-2862(F) Preclude The State's Right To Appeal Under A.R.S. § 13-4032(4) ?

¶12 The court of appeals’ jurisdiction is addressed in article 6, section 9 of the Arizona Constitution : "The jurisdiction, powers, duties and composition of any intermediate appellate court shall be as provided by law." Section 13-4032 defines the various grounds upon which the state may appeal in criminal cases. Here, the State argues that it has the right to appeal Santillanes's expungement order under § 13-4032(4), which provides that "[a]n appeal may be taken by the state from ... [a]n order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the state or a victim."

¶13 However, Santillanes claims that § 36-2862(F) provides the exclusive grounds upon which an appeal may lie with respect to petitions for expungement under the Act. See § 36-2862(F) ("If the court denies a petition for expungement, the petitioner may file a direct appeal pursuant to § 13-4033, subsection A, paragraph 3.").

¶14 We cannot read § 36-2862(F) in isolation. For over 100 years, the state has had the right to appeal an "order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the state."See State v. McKelvey , 30 Ariz. 265, 267, 246 P. 550 (1926) (explaining that this provision existed in Arizona Penal Code § 1155(5) (1913)). That right still exists today in § 13-4032(4), which the Act left entirely undisturbed.

¶15 In the context of statutory construction, this Court has emphasized:

[R]epeal of statutes by implication is not favored in the law. In State ex rel. Larson v. Farley [ 106 Ariz. 119, 471 P.2d 731 (1970)], we held that if it is reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent; and, if statutes relate to the same subject and are thus in pari materia , they should be construed together with other related statutes as though they constituted one law. Unless a statute, from its language or effect, clearly requires the conclusion that the legislature must have intended it to supersede or impliedly repeal an earlier statute, courts will not presume such an intent. Also, when reconciling two or more statutes, courts should construe and interpret them, whenever possible, in such a way so as to give effect to all the statutes involved.

Pima County ex rel City of Tucson v. Maya Constr. Co. , 158 Ariz. 151, 155, 761 P.2d 1055, 1059 (1988) (internal citations omitted) (cleaned up). This is our role regardless of whether a...