Jury selection resumes June 1 in the death penalty trial for Albert Gaxiola

Albert Gaxiola

After filling out questionnaires at Pima County Superior Court last week there are 97 prospective jurors remaining for the death penalty trial of Albert Robert Gaxiola before Judge John S. Leonardo.

Charges

Gaxiola, 43, faces two counts of first-degree murder in the May 30, 2009 deaths of Raul “Junior” Flores and his daughter, Brisenia, 9, at their home in Arivaca. Additional charges include: the attempted first-degree murder of Gina Marie Gonzalez; one count of burglary in the first-degree; one count of aggravated assault, serious physical injury; one count of aggravated assault, deadly weapon/dangerous instrument; one count of armed robbery; and one count of aggravated armed robbery.

Both Forde and co-defendant Jason Eugene Bush have been tried and convicted on the same charges. Forde received two death sentences plus 65 years in the Arizona Department of Corrections and Bush received two death sentences and 78 years in prison.

Questionnaire

Originally, 255 jurors were summoned to fill out the questionnaire on May 25. According to defense counselor Jack L. Lansdale, one juror did not fill out the questionnaire and one juror was excused. The jury commissioner had one additional juror fill out a questionnaire. Thus, of the 226 prospective jurors there are 97 remaining. Leonardo ordered that 49 jurors report at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday and the remaining 48 jurors to report at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday.

Of the seven pending motions before the court in this case a motion for sequestered or individual voir dire of jurors regarding death penalty issues was deemed the most critical. In making his argument to Leonardo, Lansdale referred to a study conducted by the California Supreme Court in 1979. “The Haney Study indicated that the lack of sequestered voir dire caused a statistically significant increase in a feeling that the defendant was guilty because of the way the group voir dire questions were conducted,” he said. “It also indicated that jurors had a tendency to not be as forthcoming in stating what their true beliefs were once they saw one or two other jurors being excused after indicating in open court what their beliefs were about the death penalty.”

Media exposure

Co-counsel Steven D. West told Leonardo that after reviewing the questionnaires in this case it is obvious that some of the jurors are aware of the issues in this case. “Far more of the venire knew about this case, about 50 percent of the people in the present venire,” he said. “We just think that it would be far more efficient to do individual voir dire with those people who have knowledge.”

Deputy County Attorney Rick Unklesbay suggested that the motion was untimely coming on the even of trial. “They are basing their motion on a 1979 study and a 1980 California case,” he said. “This issue could have been brought before the court months ago and not the eve of 100 jurors coming in over the next two days.”

Leonardo took the motion under advisement promising to rule by the end of the day on Tuesday.

Witness issue

Regarding last minute interviews of potential witnesses, Unklesbay said they would like to speak on Tuesday with a person who has been identified in the Forde and Bush trials as the reputed boss of the drug trade in the Arivaca area. “They have listed a person by the name of Eddy Valdez,” he said. “We have a very brief report from their investigator the defense has interviewed Mr. Valdez.”

Unklesbay said Tucson attorney Walter Nash represents Valdez and may have been served with a defense subpoena on behalf of his client. “Mr. Nash indicated that he would accept service of a subpoena for his client, but after Mr. West and I reviewed the rule we were not comfortable with him accepting service,” Lansdale told Leonardo. “This is a witness that I do not have a whole lot of control over and my investigator reported to me Friday night that she had gone down to Arivaca and stopped by Mr. Valdez’s residence three or four occasions. She wasn’t able to talk to him on Friday.”

Attempts will be made to contact Valdez through his attorney.

Jury selection set to resume June 1 in the death penalty trial for Albert Gaxiola

Albert Robert Gaxiola

Jury selection for the death penalty trial of Albert Robert Gaxiola, which started with a jury questionnaire on May 25, is scheduled to resume on Wednesday, June 1, before Judge John S. Leonardo in Pima County Superior Court.

Thursday, Presiding Judge Sarah R. Simmons denied a defense motion requesting that Leonardo be removed as the judge presiding over the case and that the case be assigned to another member of the bench.

As reported during the trial for convicted double-murderer Shawna Forde, the early morning shooting deaths of Raul “Junior” Flores and his daughter, Brisenia, 9, on May 30, 2009, were a breach of the so-called “Arivaca Rules.”

Those rules, according to longtime Arivaca resident and drug dealer Oin Glenn Oakstar, were that the killing of a rival drug dealer was “business,” but that the rival drug dealer’s wife and children were off-limits. “Women and children are not part of it,” Oakstar testified. “There’s no reason to bring them into it.”

Oakstar testified during the Forde trial that he had met Gaxiola, Forde’s co-defendant and his partner in the drug business, in 2008 shortly after Gaxiola had been released from prison and that they had gone into business together. “We were moving marijuana ourselves,” he testified. He is expected to testify during the trial for Gaxiola.

Charges

Gaxiola, 43, faces two counts of first-degree murder in the May 30, 2009 deaths of Raul “Junior” Flores and his daughter, Brisenia, 9, at their home in Arivaca. Additional charges include: the attempted first-degree murder of Gina Marie Gonzalez; one count of burglary in the first-degree; one count of aggravated assault, serious physical injury; one count of aggravated assault, deadly weapon/dangerous instrument; one count of armed robbery; and one count of aggravated armed robbery.

Both Forde and co-defendant Jason Eugene Bush have been tried and convicted on the same charges. Forde received two death sentences plus 65 years in the Arizona Department of Corrections and Bush received two death sentences and 78 years in prison.

Rivals

Oakstar said Gaxiola considered Flores to be a rival in the drug business and they had started talking about eliminating him as competition in late 2008 and early 2009. “We thought we could hit him economically by taking his marijuana,” Oakstar testified during the Forde trial.

Raul and Brisenia
Flores

But, they soon began to consider other alternatives. “Once we had gone that far either he was going to kill us or we were going to kill him,” Oakstar testified. “Albert thought we should kill him. We discussed having it done by somebody else. We also discussed doing it ourselves.”

There was no discussion of harming the remainder the of the Flores family. “There was no reason to involve his family,” Oakstar testified. “This was business.”

Under cross-examination during the Forde trial, Gonzalez denied that her husband was making money by selling marijuana. She also denied there were packaging materials for marijuana in her home. Arivaca resident Inga Hartman was asked during the Forde trial if she was aware that Raul Flores was a drug dealer. “Yes,” was her answer. She was asked if Gina had told her that Raul was a drug dealer. “No,” she testified.

Cartel guy

During the Forde trial Colorado resident and FBI informant Ron Wedow testified that Forde wanted to put together a team to take down the Flores home. “She told me she had met a cartel guy at a bar,” he testified. “She took a cigarette out of his mouth and stomped it on the floor. After that he was impressed with her.”

Wedow said Forde had reached an agreement with the cartel guy (Gaxiola) to tell her about illegals coming in if she would ignore his drug activities. This made Wedow suspicious. “I thought I was being set up,” he said.

Oakstar testified that Gaxiola had met Forde in May 2009. “He suggested inviting her down to help us with our problem,” refer8ng to drug competition from Flores.

Planning session

There was a planning meeting at Gaxiola’s home prior to the home invasion at the Flores home. “There was discussion about taking out Junior,” Oakstar testified during the Forde trial. Oakstar said.

Forde made it clear that she wanted to steal drugs as a mechanism for funding her border watch group. “Everybody pretty much knew that he didn’t keep drugs on the property,” he testified.

Oakstar said that meeting at Gaxiola’s home was the first time he met Jason Bush. “I had been told he had been a sniper in the military or a military group,” he said. It was at this meeting that Oakstar was asked to take them by the Flores home to get an idea of location and other logistical issues regarding a plan to kill Flores using a sniper.

Oakstar was supposed to be part of the crew that did the home invasion, but he told Gaxiola that he was too drunk and high when Gaxiola came by to pick him up the night of May 29. Instead Oakstar said he spent the night with his girlfriend Sandy Somers-Stroup.  Early on the morning of May 30, he received a call with the news of the Flores home invasion. “Automatically, I assumed it was Shawna and Jason,” he said.

Bush wounded

The next call was from Gaxiola who asked Oakstar to take painkillers and antibiotics to his house because Bush had been wounded the night before. Oakstar delayed going to Bush’s aid until he received another call, this time from Forde who he asked about the home invasion. “She said things just got all fucked up,” he said. “They had to go back to get a gun that Albert dropped and they had gotten into a firefight with his wife.”

Oin Oakstar arrested May 30

When Oakstar got to Gaxiola’s home, Bush was alone in the bedroom, but he was reluctant to go in. “A voice in the back of my head said it was dangerous,” he testified. “I didn’t know if I was going to walk out of there alive.” He testified that Bush had a hand under the blanket where he assumed was a gun.

Gaxiola identified

During the Forde trial, Gonzalez had testified that two additional males entered the home speaking Spanish. She identified the voice of one of those men as co-defendant Albert Gaxiola. She could not identify the other man. There was no mention of Gaxiola during her testimony at the Bush trial.

As for the relationship between her husband and Gaxiola, Gonzalez testified during the Forde trial that they had clashed over Gaxiola storing marijuana on their property. She also testified that she had seen a teal colored Astro van driving slowly by her home earlier in the day with a male driver and a female passenger. That van was later located at Gaxiola’s house along with blood in the van and outside of Gaxiola’s home that matched the blood found at the Flores home. That blood was matched to Jason Bush.

Projected schedule

Jury selection in the trials for both Forde and Bush took three days once it reached the courtroom. Presumably, the same model will hold for this trial. That means opening statements could be heard on Tuesday, June 7.

Motion for a change of judge in Gaxiola case is denied

A motion seeking a change of judge in the death penalty trial for Albert Robert Gaxiola in connection with the May 30, 2009, Arivaca home invasion that left two dead has been denied by Pima County Superior Court Presiding Judge Sarah R. Simmons.

Albert Gaxiola

Gaxiola, 43, faces two counts of first-degree murder in the May 30, 2009 deaths of Raul “Junior” Flores and his daughter, Brisenia, 9, at their home in Arivaca. Additional charges include: the attempted first-degree murder of Gina Marie Gonzalez; one count of burglary in the first-degree; one count of aggravated assault, serious physical injury; one count of aggravated assault, deadly weapon/dangerous instrument; one count of armed robbery; and one count of aggravated armed robbery.

Both Forde and co-defendant Jason Eugene Bush have been tried and convicted on the same charges. Forde received two death sentences plus 65 years in the Arizona Department of Corrections and Bush received two death sentences and 78 years in prison.

The issues

Simmons began the hearing, Thursday, by reviewing the reasons for the defense motion seeking to remove Judge John S. Leonardo from presiding over the case in favor of another member of the bench. “You are not asserting any actual bias or prejudice on the judge’s part,” said Simmons. “You are simply saying that since he has presided over two other trials that he has to be biased or prejudiced or can’t remove whatever he has learned in those trials from his mind.”

Defense counsel Jack L. Lansdale Jr. cited case law in his arguments before Simmons. “These cases, basically, stand for the proposition that if there is an appearance of impropriety by the time that a court is hearing a case that is grounds under (Rule) 10.1, as well as actual bias or prejudice,” he said.

Timing

Deputy County Attorney Rick Unklesbay told Simmons the timing of the motion troubled him since Gaxiola was granted a motion to sever his trial from the other two defendants in 2010. “The defense are the ones who initially put into play in front of the court evidence that would be prejudicial to their client and would justify granting a severance,” he said. “We agreed to the severance not because of issues they presented but after research we felt that having a single jury conduct multiple sentencings in a capital case would be problematic. They waited until Judge Leonardo was out of the country and unable to respond in any way.”

Lansdale told Simmons he found it troubling that the judge presiding over a death penalty case was unavailable for two weeks prior to the start of the case. “There’s nothing illegal about a judge going on vacation. I get it. Everyone has a right to go on vacation,” he said. “But, during the two weeks before a capital murder trial he’s gone. Things are going to be happening. That’s just the way it is.”

Multiple defendants

Lansdale reminded Simmons that there are three defendants and that Leonardo has presided over the trials of two of those defendants since the first of the year. “In our motion to sever we pointed out the mutually exclusive defenses that these three defendants had and the difficulty that a trier of fact would have,” he said. “By the time we filed our third motion to sever the prosecution basically recognized the problem and really didn’t oppose our third motion to sever.”

Lansdale also pointed to a ruling by Leonardo asking for limits on testimony by the surviving victim in the case, Gina Gonzalez. “During the Forde trial, she was blaming everything on Albert Gaxiola. They were doing everything they can to elicit hearsay, inadmissible evidence to point at our client,” he argued. “During the Bush trial, they admitted a confession by Jason Bush. Part of the relevant statements that came in were that the morning after the homicide the star witness for the state, a fellow by the name of Oin Oakstar who made a deal, comes in and says ‘I went over to Gaxiola’s apartment the morning of May 30^th after the homicide at Gaxiola’s request to provide some pain medication to Jason Bush who had been shot.’ During a conversation with Bush and Forde, Oakstar says he was told that ‘Albert left a gun in the house and we had to go back in and get it and that’s when the shooting occurred when the defendant got shot.’”

Lansdale said that is hearsay evidence against Gaxiola. “The judge has heard all of this,” he added.

Star witness

Unklesbay said that Oakstar has testified previously and will testify against Gaxiola. “He has steadfastly maintained that Mr. Gaxiola was involved in the initial planning of these murders, that Mr. Gaxiola wanted Junior Flores out of the way because he was drug competition,” he said. “There is hardly anything that Judge Leonardo heard in the first to cases that is not going to be part and parcel of this case. Judge Leonardo heard that the gun was left in the house that they went back to get it had Mr. Gaxiola’s DNA on it.”

Lansdale also pointed out that when Gonzalez testified during the Forde trial that she revealed for the first time since the home invasion that his client was present in the home. Based on that testimony, Lansdale had previously filed a motion seeking to keep her from testifying to that fact. “Judge Leonardo denied our motion summarily without a hearing. I’m suggesting that he is so convinced that after what he has heard that he has been influenced by all of this evidence,” he said. “It’s analogous to him receiving ex parte information about our client.”

Unklesbay pointed out that Gonzalez had told detectives during an interview on May 31, 2009, that she had recognized Gaxiola’s voice among those who took part in the home invasion. “She told them the voice she heard was that of Albert Gaxiola particularly when it said that they have another daughter,” he said.

Bush confession

Lansdale pointed to the admission of Bush’s confession at his trial, which would not be admissible at Gaxiola’s trial. “In his confession, he says Albert Gaxiola is holding a gun on him saying that if he didn’t go in and kill those people he would be killed,” he said.

Because Leonardo was out of the country on vacation, a hearing was held May 20 before Judge Richard Fields, presiding judge for the Criminal Bench, seeking changes to the language in the jury questionnaire given to 225 prospective jurors on May 25.  “Judge Fields allowed us to add the fact that our client denies even having been there,” Lansdale told Simmons. “When Judge Leonardo drafted the questionnaire it didn’t even occur to him to put anything about the defendant’s perspective that he’s denying that he was even there. He did that because he’s convinced that my client was there.”

Lansdale reassured Simmons that the grounds for the request for a change of judge were based upon issues in the case and not a question of the fairness of the judge assigned to the case. “You will never hear me say that Judge Leonardo is not a fair judge,” he said.

Denied

Simmons denied the motion based upon the case law from previous cases ruled upon in Arizona. “A judge who has heard companion cases or cases involving other defendants involved in the same matter are not automatically disqualified,” she said. “You still have to show bias or prejudice. I, frankly, don’t think you’ve shown that by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Jury selection in the matter will resume on Wednesday, June 1, before Leonardo.

Gaxiola seeking a new judge for his death penalty trial

Judge Sarah Simmons

The day after 225 prospective jurors reported to Pima County Superior Court to fill out a questionnaire to gauge their qualifications to serve as jurors in the death penalty trial of Albert Robert Gaxiola a hearing is scheduled on a request to replace Judge John S. Leonardo as the judge presiding over the case. The hearing on the motion will be heard, May 26,  by superior court Presiding Judge Sarah Simmons.

Charges

Gaxiola, 43, faces two counts of first-degree murder in the May 30, 2009 deaths of Raul “Junior” Flores and his daughter, Brisenia, 9, at their home in Arivaca. Additional charges include: the attempted first-degree murder of Gina Marie Gonzalez; one count of burglary in the first-degree; one count of aggravated assault, serious physical injury; one count of aggravated assault, deadly weapon/dangerous instrument; one count of armed robbery; and one count of aggravated armed robbery.

Albert Gaxiola

Both Forde and co-defendant Jason Eugene Bush have been tried and convicted on the same charges. Forde received two death sentences plus 65 years in the Arizona Department of Corrections and Bush received two death sentences and 78 years in prison.

Longtime Arivaca resident and drug dealer Oin Glenn Oakstar testified during the Forde trial that he had met Gaxiola, Forde’s co-defendant and his partner in the drug business, in 2008 shortly after Gaxiola had been released from prison and that they had gone into business together. “We were moving marijuana ourselves,” he testified. He is expected to testify during the trial for Gaxiola.

The motion for a new trial offered by Gaxiola’s counsel Jack S. Lansdale and Steven D. West suggests that Oakstar is “a self professed pathological liar who was originally thought to be a suspect” in the case.

Instead of facing murder charges, Oakstar was arrested on a charge possessor of deadly weapon by prohibited possessor. In exchange for testimony against Forde, Bush and Gaxiola, Judge Jane Eikleberry sentenced Oakstar to three years of intensive probation. Oakstar subsequently violated the terms of his probation and opted to serve a two-year prison sentence.

Rivals

Oakstar testified in the Forde and Bush trials that Gaxiola considered Flores to be a rival in the drug business and they had started talking about eliminating him as competition in late 2008 and early 2009. “We thought we could hit him economically by taking his marijuana,” Oakstar testified during the Forde trial.

But, they soon began to consider other alternatives. “Once we had gone that far either he was going to kill us or we were going to kill him,” Oakstar testified. “Albert thought we should kill him. We discussed having it done by somebody else. We also discussed doing it ourselves.”

There was no discussion of harming the remainder the of the Flores family. “There was no reason to involve his family,” Oakstar testified. “This was business.”

According to the motion for a change of judge, “Forde and Bush came to Arivaca early in the week of the homicide, and Gaxiola let them stay in his apartment in Arivaca while Gaxiola stayed at his other apartment in Tucson.”

The motion for a change of judge suggests that Oakstar has no firsthand knowledge of Forde’s intentions regarding Flores. “At no time did Shawna Forde reveal to Oakstar that she had a preexisting plan to do home invasions or rip offs of drug dealers,” the motion said. “There will also be no evidence that she discussed these plans with Gaxiola.”

Inadmissible evidence

Judge John S. Leonardo

The motion for a new trial states that Leonardo has heard “inadmissible evidence” and that Gina Gonzales, the surviving victim in the case, has “changed her story after almost two years and, in the Forde trial, said that Gaxiola was present during the home invasion. Prior to this revelation, Gina had acknowledged that she knew Gaxiola well, knew his voice, and never stated he was there. However, under victim’s rights, she sat through a number of court appearances where she heard the prosecution tell the court that they theorized that Gaxiola was present.” The motion points out “during the Bush trial Gina did not say Gaxiola was present.”

The motion suggests that Leonardo is convinced through previous testimony and arguments that the “identification of Gaxiola is credible, and that Gaxiola was part of the raid on the Flores residence.”

The motion points out “this belief is based essentially on communications made to the court in proceedings where Gaxiola was not present and had no voice in what the jury was hearing. In essence, as to Gaxiola it all occurred ex parte” and is “corroborated by at least two statements made by the court.”

The motion points to the first statement, which is contained in a Leonardo ruling that denied Gaxiola’s request to preclude Gonzalez’s identification during trial testimony. “Gonzalez's familiarity with Gaxiola prior to the offense conclusively establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the identification is reliable and there is no substantial likelihood of misidentification.”

Questionnaire

The motion also points to the jury questionnaire, in the section denominated background and duties of jurors, the court states: “The state alleges that Mr. Gaxiola, along with Shawna Forde and Jason Bush, was involved in the shootings as part of a raid on the Flores residence searching for drugs, guns and/or money.”

The motion suggests that the questionnaire statement while “couched in terms of what the court says is alleged, it actually goes beyond the most obvious theories, which are complicity through being a conspirator and an accomplice, since the evidence of Gaxiola being part of the actual raid is so lacking. Nevertheless, it displays the current mind set of the court that Gaxiola’s involvement as a principal is the basic theory of the case. Additionally is the court’s mind set that this questionnaire, designed by the court with no input from the parties, would be acceptable.”

Should the presiding judge grant the motion for a change of judge it is possible the trial for Gaxiola will be postponed as it is likely the judge who assumes jurisdiction over the case already has a full trial calendar that would be difficult to rearrange to accommodate a 4-5 week trial starting with jury selection on June 1.

Trial for Albert Gaxiola to remain in Pima County, for now

Albert Gaxiola

The death penalty trial for accused double murderer Albert Robert Gaxiola will stay at Pima County Superior Court. Judge John S. Leonardo has denied a motion requesting a change of venue in the case due to “extensive adverse pretrial publicity.”

The trial, which starts May 25 with a questionnaire for 225 prospective jurors, is scheduled for jury selection to start in the courtroom on Wednesday, June 1.

Charges

Gaxiola, 43, faces two counts of first-degree murder in the May 30, 2009 deaths of Raul “Junior” Flores and his daughter, Brisenia, 9, at their home in Arivaca. Additional charges include: the attempted first-degree murder of Gina Marie Gonzalez; one count of burglary in the first-degree; one count of aggravated assault, serious physical injury; one count of aggravated assault, deadly weapon/dangerous instrument; one count of armed robbery; and one count of aggravated armed robbery.

Both Forde and co-defendant Jason Eugene Bush have been tried and convicted on the same charges. Forde received two death sentences plus 65 years in the Arizona Department of Corrections and Bush received two death sentences and 78 years in prison.

Change of venue

The motion filed on behalf of Gaxiola by counsel Jack L. Lansdale Jr. and Steven D. West suggested to Leonardo “the mere association with Ms. Forde prejudices the defendant.” The motion to continued by pointing out the post conviction interview Forde gave to reporter Terry Greene Sterling of The Daily Beast in which Forde showed no remorse and attempted to shift blame to the victims with her statement: “people shouldn’t deal drugs if they have kids.”

The motions states that a Google search for Forde’s name showed over 71,000 results and a similar search for Gaxiola resulted in over 61,000 results. The motion also pointed out that the Arizona Daily Star published an article on April 23 describing how jurors sitting on the trial for co-defendant Jason Eugene Bush where “emotionally drained” by “haunting” images of Brisenia Flores. 

Motion denied

In denying the motion for a change of venue, Leonardo pointed out that the court and parties have not yet selected a jury, thus “Gaxiola does not and cannot argue that actual prejudice has resulted from an unfair jury. Rather, he argues for the presumption of prejudice.”

Leonardo also wrote “for the court to presume such prejudice, Gaxiola must ‘show pretrial publicity so outrageous that it promises to turn the trial into a mockery of justice or a mere formality.’”

Leonardo’s order said that the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals has identified three factors when evaluating pretrial publicity in a case:

·       “whether there was a ‘barrage of inflammatory publicity immediately prior to the trial amounting to a huge…wave of public passion,’”

·       “whether the media accounts were primarily factual [rather than] inflammatory editorials and cartoons,”

·       “whether the media accounts contained inflammatory, prejudicial information that was not admissible at trial.”

In making his ruling denying the motion for a change of venue, Leonardo focused on news coverage provided by local newspapers and television stations. “Even though reports in the mainstream media have been largely factual, it is reasonable to believe that some people—some people—who followed the trials of the codefendants closely might have already formed hardened opinions on Gaxiola’s guilt or innocence,” he wrote in his ruling. “But that is not enough to presume that the entire community has been so pervaded with inflammatory information that Gaxiola cannot receive a fair trial at this time and place.”

Jury pool

Finally, Leonardo pointed out in his ruling that Pima County has a population of approximately 980,000 people and that 600,000 of those residents are eligible for jury service. The court has summoned 225 prospective jurors on May 25 to fill out a questionnaire that will assist the court in determining their eligibility to serve as jurors. “Will it be possible to find 16 impartial individuals in this community?” the judge wrote. “The court believes it will.”

Bush sentenced to an additional 78 years in prison

Jason Bush
Pool photo by Dean Knuth
Arizona Daily Star

Pima County Superior Court Judge John S. Leonardo sentenced the operations director of Minuteman American Defense, Jason Eugene Bush, Friday morning, to 78 years in the Arizona Department of Corrections. The prison time is on the six charges for which he was convicted in addition to a pair of first-degree murder charges for which he received the death penalty.

On March 25, the jury returned guilty verdicts against Bush, 36, on two counts of first-degree murder in the May 30, 2009 deaths of Raul “Junior” Flores and his daughter, Brisenia, 9, at their home in Arivaca. The jury sentenced him to death on the two first-degree murder counts on April 5.

The jury further found on March 25 that the murders were premeditated and were also committed while Bush was engaged in other felony activities, including the attempted first-degree murder of Gina Marie Gonzalez; one count of burglary in the first-degree; one count of aggravated assault, serious physical injury; one count of aggravated assault, deadly weapon/dangerous instrument; one count of armed robbery; and one count of aggravated armed robbery.

Sentences imposed Monday:

• Count 3—burglary in the first degree—21 years, to be served consecutively to the death penalty sentences imposed by the jury in counts 1 and 2.

• Count 4—attempted first-degree murder—21 years to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed by the jury in counts 1 and 2.

• Count 5—aggravated assault, serious physical injury—15 years to be served consecutively the sentences imposed by the jury in counts 1 and 2.

• Count 6—aggravated assault with a deadly weapon—15 years to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for count 5.

• Count 7—armed robbery—21 years to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed by the jury in counts 1 and 2.

• Count 8—aggravated robbery—15 years to be served concurrently to the sentence imposed for count 7.

On the issue of restitution, Leonardo granted the prosecution a few days in order to submit an affidavit listing the losses incurred by Gonzalez and her family. After the hearing, Gonzalez stated that her restitution request was for $11,848.

During the hearing, Bush’s counsel, Chris Kimminau declined to address the court on behalf of his client. When asked by Leonardo if he had anything to say, Bush started to address the issue of restitution. “Restitution?” he said. “Get real. I’m going to death row.” At that point, Kimminau asked his client to cease speaking.

Co-defendant Albert Robert Gaxiola is scheduled to begin trial with jury selection before Leonardo on June 1.

Green Valley Fire Governing Board Approves Boundary Change

The Green Valley Fire District governing board voted unanimously May 4 to add northern Sahuarita to the district’s boundaries, marking the final step in the district’s annexation efforts. There is a 30-day waiting period, set in state law, before GVFD will provide service to the annexed area.

GVFD currently serves the southern half of Sahuarita, as well as the entire Green Valley area. The district sought to annex the northern half of Sahuarita in order to provide fire protection to the entire region, which enhances public safety planning and coordination for the communities of Sahuarita and Green Valley.

GVFD has worked to annex northern Sahuarita for the past year, following the process set by Arizona law, which requires fire districts seeking to annex territory to collect a majority of the number of property owners’ signatures in the annexation area, as well as signatures representing the majority of the property value. Under the law, GVFD had one year from April 28, 2010 to obtain these signatures.

On April 29, the Pima County clerk of the board, who is required to review the annexation petitions submitted by GVFD and verify that the signatures are valid, announced that GVFD had exceeded the signature requirements. Following the clerk’s validation, the annexation was certified by the Pima County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on May 3.

The final step in the process was the GVFD governing board vote today, which officially changed the district’s boundaries to add northern Sahuarita. GVFD must now wait 30 days to begin providing fire service to the area. State law allows any third parties to challenge the annexation in court during this 30-day period.

GVFD is committed to ensuring the community’s safety and responding expediently during the transition phase. In order to transfer services in a seamless and efficient manner from the current provider, Rural Metro Corporation, GVFD has developed a comprehensive transition plan that outlines key dates and procedures for when GVFD would begin service in the area.

GVFD Chief Simon Davis said “For the past year, our firefighters and staff have worked alongside their fellow Sahuarita residents to collect petition signatures. It is extremely gratifying to be able to report to them today that their hard work has paid off. We look forward to providing Sahuarita with the highest quality fire and emergency medical response service and continuing to team up on positive community efforts.”

Regarding the potential for a legal challenge from Rural Metro Corporation, Davis added “it would be disappointing if Rural Metro files a lawsuit and further delays the annexation, especially after our petitions were carefully reviewed and validated by Pima County.”

Supervisors approve the fire district’s annexation request

The process to create a regional fire protection system that encompasses both Green Valley and the town of Sahuarita took another positive step Tuesday as the Pima County Board of Supervisors approved, 3-1, the proposed annexation by the Green Valley Fire District of the northern portion Sahuarita. Currently, that area receives fire and emergency services protection from the Rural Metro Fire Department.

Petition filings

Phil Conklin

GVFD officials had turned in, last week, the signatures of the owners of an additional $2.8 million in property on April 26, including $1 million in town property that was approved by the Sahuarita Town Council the night before. “We took that action, primarily, in recognition that a majority of our citizens within the annexation area had signed the petitions, later certified, favoring the annexation,” Vice Mayor Phil Conklin told the board during the meeting. “Allowing our citizens’ signatures to speak for themselves, I respectfully request that you honor the will of a majority of our citizens.”

Chief Simon Davis

The fire district had turned in the bulk of its petitions on March 30 and the board of supervisors had scheduled a hearing on April 12 until it was postponed at the request of GVFD. Fire district officials had discovered that the petitions contained signatures from a majority of property owners but was short of petitions signed by the owners of a majority of property value in the annexation area. The deadline for filing annexations petitions was April 28. “Unfortunately, my associates on the other side of this annexation issue are here to point out or mistakes,” Chief Simon Davis told the board.

Petitions certified

Lori Godoshian, clerk of the board of supervisors, on April 29, posted a memo stating that GVFD's latest petition submittals had brought the property valuation total to nearly $48.9 million for the annexation area, well above the nearly $47.3 million required by state law. “Additional petitions were submitted by the Green Valley Fire District,” she told the board of supervisors. “They have now met the 50, plus one percentage for assessed value with $48, 874,608.”

However, Rural Metro represented by Kimberly A. Demarchi with the law firm, Lewis & Roca, last week, filed a letter and exhibits with the clerk of the board asserting that about $5 million of that value is not valid. “This is the end of the process,” Demarchi told the board. “This is the only review that will happen. There will be no election. The Green Valley Fire District will be free to complete the annexation subject to court action.”

GFVD attorney Donna Aversa told the board that their task was relatively simple once all of the hard work by Godoshian’s office had been completed. “I don’t think the county has ever seen an annexation of this magnitude,” she said. “I appreciate all of the work that the county staff has put into this. The assessor’s task is very clear to count the number of signatures and to count the assessed value. It’s a yes or no question and we have heard today that the answer is yes.”

Aversa also acknowledged that the issue could move to the legal arena in the near future. “This is not the end of the process. This is the end of the county’s participation in the process,” she said.

Fireboard member Bill Katzel urged the board to approve the annexation request. “This annexation is not about politics or profit, but endorsing the will of the majority of the people of the town of Sahuarita,” he said.

Board discussion

Supervisor Ramon Valadez, D., District 1, had declared a conflict of interest and turned the chairmanship of the meeting over to Supervisor Sharon Bronson, D., District 3. The motion to approve the annexation was made by Supervisor Ray Carroll, R., District 4. “The vice mayor said it best. This is an issue of local control,” said Carroll. “The majority of the citizens have agreed to be annexed.”

Supervisor Richard Elias, D., District 5, thanks all of the emergency services personnel present and then raised objections to the annexation petitions submitted. “The chief of Green Valley said they made some minor mistakes,” Elias pointed out. “There were a lot of mistakes made in this process.”

Elias suggested the mistake had put the taxpayers in a bad position. “This is about fire services. This is about rescue services, but this is also about taxes that are taken from people,” he said.

Bronson said she had not planned to comment on the issues, but felt compelled to say something. “Our attorneys have indicated that the Green Valley Fire District petitions have met the requirements,” she said.

Chief Tom Brandhuber

After the vote, Rural Metro Chief Tom Brandhuber did not appear to be surprised. “We are disappointed, but we respect the process and we respect their ability to make the decision,” he said.

The GVFD board is expected to meet Wednesday to approve the annexation. “The next step is our board is holding a meeting to approve the annexation and change the boundaries of the district,” said Davis.

Fireboard Chairman Dave Appleton anticipates the fireboard will approve the annexation. “There’s no doubt about it. Not a problem,” he said.

Regional fire protection

Davis said the real reason for the annexation has been lost in the arguments about the petitions and property values. “The reason behind this annexation is to create a regional fire protection system to take advantage of economies of scale and to have the community benefit from additional resources,” he said. “The end result will be better delivery of emergency services to the community.”

If the annexation is approved by the fireboard, Rural Metro and others will have 30 days to challenge the action in Pima County Superior Court. “We’ll sit down together as an organization and decide what our next steps are going to be,” said Brandhuber. “All options are on the table and have some internal deliberations and go from there.”

After the meeting Carroll expressed additional confidence in the proposed annexation. “I have great confidence in their board and their chief,” he said.

Carroll was asked if Elias had raised significant concerns during the board’s executive session to receive legal advice. “We can’t discuss what happens in closed session, but the chief and other members of the board have acknowledged that this process was messy and wasn’t perfect,” he said. “It’s a lot like making sausage, but the final product should be a successful annexation, I hope,”

Unless legal action is taken, the fire district’s boundaries will change on June 3. Rural Metro has experience challenging annexations in the past and at times has engaged in protracted litigation.

Meanwhile, GVFD has asked Rural Metro to approve a transition plan that would pay Rural Metro $1,000 a day to continue serving northern Sahuarita for up to 30 additional days, or until July 3 at the latest. Chief Brandhuber said Rural Metro would fully cooperate in any transition if one takes place.