Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0096
02-12-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JESUS BERNAL, Appellant.
COUNSEL Law Offices of Matthew H. Green, Tucson By Matthew H. Green Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20172667002
The Honorable Janet C. Bostwick, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Law Offices of Matthew H. Green, Tucson
By Matthew H. Green
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
STARING, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Jesus Bernal was convicted of second-degree money laundering, practicing dentistry without a license, conspiracy, illegal control of an enterprise, and three counts of fraudulent schemes and artifices. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which were three years. Counsel has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no "meritorious issue" to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Bernal has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt, see A.R.S. §§ 13-301, 13-1003, 13-2301(D)(4), 13-2310, 13-2312(A), (B), 13-2317(B), (E), 32-1261. The evidence presented at trial showed that three victims paid a woman who held herself out as a dentist, but was not licensed as one in Arizona, for dental services. Bernal rented an office to the woman on Saturdays, unlocking the door for her or directing staff to do so each time; but he told his staff to deny any knowledge of a dentist in the building and did not include her payments in his accounting, accepting cash instead. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit and was lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-1003(D), 13-2310(A), (D), 13-2312(D), 13-2317(E), 32-1261.
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Bernal's convictions and sentences are affirmed.