Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 17-0465
07-12-2018
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RUDY DANIEL PALOMO-ROBLEDO, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Joel M. Glynn 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2016-146016-001
The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Joel M. Glynn
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.
HOWE, Judge:
¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Rudy Daniel Palomo-Robledo has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Palomo-Robledo was convicted of aggravated assault, a class 3 dangerous felony. Palomo-Robledo was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Palomo-Robledo's conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Palomo-Robledo. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). Early one morning in August 2016, Palomo-Robledo and his then-girlfriend went to a convenience store to purchase some items. The store clerk asked Palomo-Robledo to leave because of issues the store had with him in the past. Palomo-Robledo became upset and got into an argument with the clerk outside the store.
¶3 M.F., a regular customer of the store, noticed the argument and pulled his truck into a parking spot near Palomo-Robledo and the clerk. M.F. told Palomo-Robledo that he was not welcomed at the store and that he needed to leave. Palomo-Robledo came around the rear of M.F.'s truck, stated "hey, mother fucker, I've got something for you[,]" and pulled out a four-inch bladed knife from his pocket. M.F. quickly reached into his truck and retrieved his gun. M.F. pointed the gun at Palomo-Robledo and told him to "back up." During that time, the store clerk called the police and Palomo-Robledo left when he heard the police sirens approaching. The Mesa Police Department later arrested Palomo-Robledo.
¶4 The State charged Palomo-Robledo with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for intentionally placing M.F. in reasonable
apprehension of imminent physical injury. Palomo-Robledo was convicted as charged after a jury trial. The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Palomo-Robledo's constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. The court sentenced Palomo-Robledo to the presumptive term of 7.5 years' imprisonment with 276 days' presentence incarceration credit. Palomo-Robledo timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶5 We review Palomo-Robledo's conviction and sentence for fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Counsel for Palomo-Robledo has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, counsel has found no arguable question of law. We have read and considered counsel's brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, counsel represented Palomo-Robledo at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory guidelines. We decline to order briefing and affirm Palomo-Robledo's conviction and sentence.
¶6 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Palomo-Robledo of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Palomo-Robledo shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
CONCLUSION
¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.