State v. Gonzalez ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                      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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
    VICTOR JULIO GONZALEZ, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 15-0594
    FILED 3-8-2016
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CR2013-436733-001
    The Honorable Charles Donofrio, III, Judge Pro Tempore
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Joseph T. Maziarz
    Counsel for Appellee
    Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
    By Tennie B. Martin
    Counsel for Appellant
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.
    STATE v. GONZALEZ
    Decision of the Court
    P O R T L E Y, Judge:
    ¶1             This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967)
    and State v. Leon, 
    104 Ariz. 297
    , 
    451 P.2d 878
    (1969). Counsel for Defendant
    Victor Julio Gonzalez has advised us that she has been unable to discover
    any arguable questions of law after searching the entire record and has filed
    a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Gonzalez
    did not take the opportunity to file a supplemental brief.
    FACTS1
    ¶2            This in an appeal from a probation violation. Gonzalez was
    originally charged with possession of dangerous drugs for sale, possession
    of drug paraphernalia and criminal trespass. He pled guilty to conspiracy
    to commit possession of dangerous drugs for sale and criminal trespass,
    and was placed on probation on both counts. He subsequently admitted
    violating probation in 2014 and 2015.
    ¶3             Gonzalez’s probation officer filed another petition to revoke
    his probation on May 8, 2015, which was later supplemented, alleging he
    escaped, absconded, and did not remain in the county jail by failing to
    return to the jail after his work furlough release. Gonzalez denied the
    allegations. There was a witness hearing, and the court found by a
    preponderance of the evidence that he absconded and did not remain in the
    county jail on April 29, 2015. Gonzalez was sentenced to five years in prison
    for conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs for sale (with 194
    days of presentence incarceration credit) and a concurrent year for criminal
    trespass (with 293 days of presentence incarceration credit).
    ¶4             We have jurisdiction over Gonzalez’s appeal pursuant to
    Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised
    Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).2
    1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict,
    and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v.
    Rienhardt, 
    190 Ariz. 579
    , 588-89, 
    951 P.2d 454
    , 463-64 (1997).
    2 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes absent changes
    material to this decision.
    STATE v. GONZALEZ
    Decision of the Court
    DISCUSSION
    ¶5            We have read and considered the opening brief. We have
    searched the entire record for reversible error related to the May 2015
    probation violation petition and the subsequent hearing, the finding that
    Gonzalez violated probation, and the sentences. We find none. See 
    Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300
    , 451 P.2d at 881.
    ¶6            All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the
    Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that
    Gonzalez was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and
    the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits.
    ¶7             After this decision is filed, counsel’s obligation to represent
    Gonzales in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform him of the
    status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel identifies an issue
    appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
    review. State v. Shattuck, 
    140 Ariz. 582
    , 584-85, 
    684 P.2d 154
    , 156-57 (1984).
    Gonzalez may, if he desires, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for
    review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶8            Accordingly, we affirm Gonzalez’s convictions and sentences.
    :ama
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 15-0594

Filed Date: 3/8/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021