From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Badillo

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Feb 16, 2016
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0607 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2016)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0607

02-16-2016

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANIEL MATTHEW BADILLO, Appellant.

COUNSEL Yuma County Public Defender's Office, Yuma By Edward F. McGee Counsel for Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee


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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Yuma County
No. S1400CR201401306
The Honorable Stephen J. Rouff, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Yuma County Public Defender's Office, Yuma
By Edward F. McGee
Counsel for Appellant Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. THUMMA, 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 Daniel Matthew Badillo has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law and asks this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Badillo was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro se, but has not done so. This court has reviewed the record and has found no reversible error. Accordingly, Badillo's convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On appeal, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolves all reasonable inferences against the defendant. State v. Karr, 221 Ariz. 319, 320 ¶ 2 (App. 2008).

¶2 In November 2014, Badillo entered the home of K.B., a family member, without permission and locked himself in the bathroom. After Yuma police officers arrived, Badillo came out of the bathroom and said he was on methamphetamine. Badillo also claimed to have committed certain area robberies, but later said he lied about committing those robberies. Police arrested Badillo and he was charged with criminal trespass in the first degree, a Class 6 felony, and interfering with judicial proceedings, a Class 1 misdemeanor, both domestic violence offenses. At the time of his arrest, Badillo was subject to a valid order of protection that had been served on him, barring him from contacting K.B. or from entering her home.

Initials are used to protect the victim's privacy. State v. Maldonado, 206 Ariz. 339, 341 n.1 ¶ 2 (App. 2003).

¶3 In February 2015, Badillo entered into a "Slow Plea Agreement" with the State. The agreement required Badillo to plead guilty to both charges. Badillo would then be enrolled in drug court, and upon successful completion of that program, the State would move to dismiss the charges. During a detailed colloquy on the record while Badillo was represented by counsel, the superior court informed him of the consequences of his plea, including that if he did not successfully complete the drug court program, he would be adjudicated during a "short trial" where "the chances of conviction are extremely high." After the colloquy, the court found Badillo knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered into the plea, with an understanding of the consequences of doing so. After a factual basis was provided for the plea, the court deferred acceptance and placed Badillo in drug court.

¶4 By mid-March 2015, Badillo had tested positive for methamphetamine, was removed from a treatment program and was taken back into custody. In April 2015, Badillo again was placed in a drug treatment program but, by mid-May 2015, he had again tested positive for methamphetamine. Badillo was terminated from the drug treatment program and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

¶5 After Badillo was arrested, at a short trial in June 2015, he was found guilty on both charges. The court sentenced Badillo to prison for a mitigated term of 9 months for criminal trespass, with 195 days of presentence incarceration credit and community supervision to follow his release, and 6 months in jail for interfering with judicial proceedings, with credit for time served. Badillo timely appealed his convictions and sentences. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033 (2016).

Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. --------

DISCUSSION

¶6 This court has reviewed and considered counsel's brief and has searched the entire record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Searching the record and briefs reveals no reversible error. The record shows Badillo was represented by counsel at all relevant stages of the proceedings. The record shows that there was substantial evidence supporting Badillo's convictions. From the record, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The sentences imposed were within the statutory limits and permissible ranges.

CONCLUSION

¶7 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; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537 ¶ 30. Accordingly, Badillo's convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

¶8 Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to inform Badillo of the status of his 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). Badillo 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.


Summaries of

State v. Badillo

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Feb 16, 2016
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0607 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2016)
Case details for

State v. Badillo

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANIEL MATTHEW BADILLO, Appellant.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Feb 16, 2016

Citations

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0607 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2016)