Whether the Miranda warning must expressly state that the right to counsel continues during, and not just prior to, interrogation

No question identified. : State of Arizona in this case, and reports that the State does not object to this request for an extension of time. Petitioner asks for a 60-day extension of time to file the petition for certiorari to accommodate the workload of his counsel. Among counsel’s recently completed and imminent work are: oral argument in the Arizona Court of Appeals in State v. Dayton, No. 2 CA-CR 2022-0087, on December 13, 2023; an opening brief in State v. Fontes, 2 CA-CR 2023-0024 (due December 6, 2023); reply briefs in State v. Romero, 2 CA-CR 2023-0010 (filed November 13, 2023), and State v. Batain, 2 CA-CR 2023-0002 (due December 4, 2023); petitions for review to the Arizona Supreme Court in Jonathan S. v. Hon. Ortiz / Ana S. et al., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-23-0264 (filed October 26, 2023), In re Termination of Parental Rights as to K.A et al., Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-23-0276 (filed November 10, 2023), and State v. Bagby, Arizona Court of Appeals No. 2 CA-CR 2022-0094 (due December 11, 2023); a petition for postconviction relief in State v. Chea, Pima County Superior Court No. CR-20214204-001 (due December 4, 2023); and a post-conviction evidentiary hearing to be scheduled soon involving a two-month-long murder trial in State v. Bigger, Pima County Superior Court No. CR-20043995. Counsel is also the supervisor of the appellate unit of the Pima County Public Defender’s Office, which requires significant time each day to be diverted from case work not only to manage administrative duties but also to emergency trial matters. / / For these reasons, Petitioner prays for a 60-day extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter, to and including February 9, 2024. Respectfully submitted: November 20, 2023. ry DAVID J. EUCHNER Counsel of Record Pima County Public Defender’s Office 33 N. Stone Ave., 21st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 724-6800 voice IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, vz. GEORGE WILLIE RIOS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2022-0084 Filed April 10, 2023 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20195491001 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General Alice M. Jones, Deputy Solicitor General/Section Chief of Criminal Appeals By Amy Pignatella Cain, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Megan Page, Pima County Public Defender By David J. Euchner, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. RIOS Opinion of the Court OPINION Judge Sklar authored the opinion of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge O’Neil concurred. SKLAR, Judge: qj George Rios appeals his convictions and sentences for theft of property, burglary, and theft of a means of transportation. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress based on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). He further argues that the Miranda advisory was inadequate because it stated only that he had the right to “the presence of an attorney to assist you prior to questioning.” It did not expressly state that his right to counsel continued “during” questioning. We conclude that the advisory reasonably conveyed Rios’s rights, such that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The “prior to” language conveyed to Rios when his right to the “presence” of counsel was triggered. It did not convey any subsequent limitation on that right. We also reject Rios’s arguments that insufficient evidence supported his convictions and that the trial court erred in giving certain jury instructions. We therefore affirm Rios’s convictions and sentences. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND q2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, and we resolve all inferences against Rios. See State v. Felix, 237 Ariz. 280, 930 (App. 2015). In October 2019, Rios was doing construction work at a fitness center in Tucson. M.V. also worke