Opinion
1 CA-CR 22-0561
02-22-2024
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JUAN JOSEPH AVILA-LOVATO, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee Michael J. Dew Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Michael J. Dew Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2021-142743-001 The Honorable David W. Garbarino, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee
Michael J. Dew Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Michael J. Dew Counsel for Appellant
Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FURUYA, JUDGE
¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Juan Joseph Avila-Lovato advised this court that he has found no arguable question of law after searching the entire record and asks this court to conduct an Anders review. Avila-Lovato was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. This court has reviewed counsel's brief and the record and has found no reversible error. Accordingly, Avila-Lovato's conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 "We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant." State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).
¶3 On November 13, 2021, law enforcement responded to an incident between Avila-Lovato and a pizza delivery driver who claimed Avila-Lovato had threatened him with a firearm. The delivery driver identified Avila-Lovato to a law enforcement officer when Avila-Lovato drove past them. Another officer pursued Avila-Lovato in a marked law enforcement vehicle with his police lights and siren on. He reported Avila-Lovato drove up to a speed of at least 80 miles per hour on city roads, ran a red light during the chase, and at one point lost control of his vehicle. The officer terminated the chase after being instructed to by his superior officer. Law enforcement later apprehended Avila-Lovato at his residence.
¶4 The State charged Avila-Lovato with Count I, Aggravated Assault, a Class 3 felony; and Count II, Unlawful Flight from Pursuing Law Enforcement Vehicle, a Class 5 felony. See Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") §§ 13-1204(A)(2), (F), 28-622.01. He was released to the supervision of the Pretrial Services Division on November 14, 2021.
¶5 Avila-Lovato testified at trial, admitting he fled from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle because he was scared for his life. He also admitted he knew the vehicle was marked as a law enforcement vehicle and that its police lights and siren were on.
¶6 A jury found Avila-Lovato not guilty of Count I and guilty of Count II. The court sentenced him to two years of supervised probation. See A.R.S. § 13-902(A). It also imposed fines totaling $65 a month and suspended his driver's license. See A.R.S. § 28-3304. Avila-Lovato timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶7 The record shows that Avila-Lovato was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical stages. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The sentence imposed was within statutory limits. The award of presentence incarceration credit was accurate. And in all other respects, from the record presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
CONCLUSION
¶8 This court has read and considered counsel's brief and has searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Accordingly, Avila-Lovato's conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed.
¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel is directed to inform Avila-Lovato of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Avila-Lovato shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.