NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDDIE BOJORQUEZ, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 22-0338 FILED 5-30-2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CR201180048 The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Ashley Torkelson Levine Counsel for Appellee Zickerman Law Office, Flagstaff By Adam Zickerman Counsel for Appellant STATE v. BOJORQUEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined. M c M U R D I E, Judge: ¶1 Eddie Bojorquez appeals from the revocation of his probation and the resulting prison sentence, arguing there was an unreasonable delay between the revocation petition and the later hearing. We affirm. FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In June 2011, Bojorquez pled guilty to several criminal offenses, including burglary, theft, and criminal damage. As a result, he was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which was six years. The court also suspended his sentence and placed him on a five-year probation term upon his release from prison. One of the conditions of his probation was that he “maintain a crime-free lifestyle by obeying all laws, and not engag[e] or participat[e] in any criminal activity.” ¶3 While on probation in 2019, Bojorquez was arrested following an incident where he trespassed onto the property of his ex-girlfriend and refused to leave. Then, in August 2020, Bojorquez was arrested under federal authority and charged with smuggling undocumented immigrants into the United States. Following these incidents, the State petitioned to revoke Bojorquez’s probation on September 1, and he was arraigned on September 8. A probation violation management conference was set for December. ¶4 But the defense requested and was granted a continuance at the management conference, and nearly two years of postponements followed until Bojorquez’s violation hearing, which did not occur until June 2022. During that time, the defense requested a continuance at least five times. On other occasions, Bojorquez failed to appear for COVID-related reasons or errors in the defense counsel’s calendar. The State, by contrast, 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment. State v. Mendoza, 248 Ariz. 6, 11, ¶ 1, n.1 (App. 2019). 2 STATE v. BOJORQUEZ Decision of the Court alleges that it “was ready to proceed at every hearing, telephonically or otherwise.” ¶5 At the violation hearing, Bojorquez moved to dismiss the revocation petition, noting that the petition “has been hanging over his head for nearly two years.” And Bojorquez argued that the delay in the proceedings denied him “expeditious disposition” and deprived him of the opportunity for the sentence to run concurrently with his federal sentence, which he had now served. The superior court denied the motion, explaining: We’ve been trying …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals