Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 17-0021
04-24-2018
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. SANTY VALENTE EZESARTE, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Kevin D. Heade Counsel for Appellant
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2015-153469-001
The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Kevin D. Heade
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge James P. Beene and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.
CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Santy Valente Ezesarte appeals his conviction of attempted robbery and the resulting sentence. Ezesarte's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Ezesarte was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Ezesarte's conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 The victim was sitting at a picnic table outside a fast-food restaurant one day in late November 2015. Ezesarte walked up and, after grabbing the victim's cigarettes and lighter from the table, grabbed the victim's satchel from the bench next to him and began to walk away. The victim grabbed the strap of the bag to stop Ezesarte, and in response Ezesarte turned and hit the victim. Ezesarte hit and kicked the victim several more times before someone nearby restrained him.
¶3 Ezesarte was arrested and charged with one count of robbery. A jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of attempted robbery, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 21.4(a)(2), and found one aggravating circumstance. The superior court found that Ezesarte had three historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him as a category three repetitive offender to an aggravated term of six years' imprisonment, with credit for 388 days of presentence incarceration. Ezesarte appealed, and although his initial appeal was untimely, the superior court later granted his request for leave to file a delayed appeal, and he timely filed a renewed notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
¶4 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.
¶5 Ezesarte was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Ezesarte all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Ezesarte's sentence falls within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.
CONCLUSION
¶6 Ezesarte's conviction and sentence are affirmed. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Ezesarte's representation in this appeal will end after informing Ezesarte of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the court's own motion, Ezesarte has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.