Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0232
01-16-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. BERMEL RANDOLPH VALENTIN MOISEAU, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Legal Advocate's Office, Phoenix By Colin F. Stearns Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2011-162545-001
The Honorable Robert E. Miles, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Legal Advocate's Office, Phoenix
By Colin F. Stearns
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. PORTLEY, 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 Bermel Randolph Valentin Moiseau has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Moiseau has not taken advantage of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief.
FACTS
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 The victim, who knew Moiseau from a halfway house, helped Moiseau get a job as a telemarketer at Stellar Graphics. On Moiseau's first day on the job, the victim saw Moiseau punching a tabletop vending machine and thus breaking the glass portion of the machine. When confronted outside of the building by one of the owners of the business, Moiseau denied any involvement but became agitated because of the accusation. Because he was agitated, Moiseau was asked to leave the premises. He then saw the victim, pushed past the owner, re-entered the premises and stabbed the victim in the chest with a pen, causing him to bleed. Paramedics treated the victim at the scene.
¶3 Moiseau later called and apologized to the victim. Some six days after the stabbing, Moiseau sat next to the victim on the bus. After Moiseau got off the bus, the victim called the police. Moiseau was subsequently located and arrested. He was then charged with aggravated assault, a dangerous offense, and the State later alleged that he was on parole at the time and had prior felony convictions.
¶4 The case went to trial. Moiseau made an unsuccessful motion for a directed verdict pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. Moiseau did not testify. After being properly instructed, the jury found him guilty of the charge. Moiseau then filed a motion for new trial or alternatively, a motion for reconsideration of the directed verdict. The trial court denied the motion.
¶5 The case then proceeded to sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Moiseau was on parole at the time of the offense and that he had two prior felony convictions. He was then sentenced to seven and one-half years in prison, given credit for 474 days of presentence incarceration and ordered to pay $300 in restitution to the victim. We have jurisdiction over this 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).
DISCUSSION
¶6 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. We find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Moiseau was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, that the jury was properly instructed, that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict, that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for directed verdict or the motion for new trial, and that the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits.
¶7 After this decision is filed, counsel's obligation to represent Moiseau 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). Moiseau may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
CONCLUSION
¶8 Accordingly, we affirm Moiseau's conviction and sentence.