Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 12-0415
01-28-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DOMINIC ANTHONY CHAGOLLA, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee DeBrigida Law Offices, PLLC, Glendale By Ronald M. DeBrigida, Jr. 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NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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. CR2010-166615-001
The Honorable Sherry K. Stephens, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
DeBrigida Law Offices, PLLC, Glendale
By Ronald M. DeBrigida, Jr.
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 Dominic Chagolla has advised us that he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law after searching the entire record and requests us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Chagolla did not take 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 M.C., Chagolla's mother, gave him a ride the morning of Wednesday, December 15, 2010. She was last seen when Chagolla got into the passenger seat of her Suburban with his gym bag and wearing gloves and layers of clothes. Chagolla, however, came home twenty to thirty minutes later and began mopping the kitchen before taking a shower. He subsequently told police that his mother had dropped him off at the park to go run for one-and-a-half to two hours while carrying his bag. However, M.C. never picked up her sister for a 9:00 a.m. shopping trip that they had scheduled that morning. M.C. also failed to pick up her granddaughter from school.
M.C. had adopted Chagolla's biological daughter.
¶3 A few days later, two people reported seeing a Suburban in their neighborhood; one first noticed the car on Wednesday or Thursday, while the other reported seeing the car beginning Tuesday or Wednesday. One neighborhood resident testified that the area was a common place for cars to be abandoned. The police found the Suburban locked and with the alarm set.
¶4 The forensics supervisor found blood in the Suburban and the blood splatter was consistent with a person in the driver's seat being stabbed by a person in the passenger's seat. Although there was blood on the windshield, the driver's window, the steering wheel, and on the console, there was no blood in the passenger's seat. The police also found M.C.'s body on the floor of her Suburban, behind the driver's and passenger's seats, and covered with a blanket. She suffered multiple stab wounds to her head, neck, hands, and arms. A blood-covered knife, matching the pattern of those in the house she shared with Chagolla, was found underneath M.C.'s body.
¶5 At the time the neighbors were reporting the Suburban, a construction worker reported that he had seen a frightened male near a construction site and inside a gated community earlier in the week. The male disposed of a trash bag before jumping a fence. The construction worker looked into a trash bin and discovered a gym bag filled with blood-soaked clothes. The striped dress shirt inside the bag was blood-soaked, particularly at the cuffs, and the DNA on the inside collar tag belonged to both M.C. and Chagolla. A witness also testified that Chagolla wore a similar shirt the morning of December 15 that was large on him. Chagolla's sister, D.G., testified that she recognized the olive suit jacket found in the gym bag as her deceased father's and his other sister testified that her brother often wore their father's clothes.
¶6 Chagolla was charged with and convicted by a jury of first degree murder, which was both a domestic violence and dangerous offense, as well as abandonment or concealment of a dead body. He was sentenced to prison for his natural life for the first degree murder, and a concurrent 1.5 years for the abandonment or concealment of a dead body. Chagolla was also given 556 days of presentence incarceration credit.
¶7 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1) (West 2014).
We cite the current version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred.
--------
DISCUSSION
¶8 We have read and considered the opening brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none.
¶9 For a defendant to be convicted of first degree murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the defendant caused the death of another person; (2) while intending or knowing his conduct will cause death; and (3) with premeditation. A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(1) (West 2014). "'Premeditation' means that the defendant acts with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by any length of time to permit reflection." A.R.S. § 13-1101 (West 2014). For a jury to convict a defendant of abandonment or concealment of a dead body, the State must show that the defendant "knowingly move[d] a dead human body or parts of a human body with the intent to abandon or conceal the dead human body or parts." A.R.S. § 13-2926 (West 2014).
¶10 We review the sufficiency of evidence by considering whether substantial evidence supports the verdict. State v. Scott, 177 Ariz. 131, 138, 865 P.2d 792, 799 (1993); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a). Substantial evidence is proof that "reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990) (quoting State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419, 610 P.2d 51, 53 (1980)). Here, the jury determined the credibility of witnesses and weighed the evidence as instructed to determine whether the State proved each element of each charge. See State v. Tucker, 113 Ariz. 475, 477, 557 P.2d 160, 162 (1976). Based on the evidence presented, there was substantial evidence to support the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶11 All of the legal proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Chagolla was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, the jury was properly instructed, and the sentences were within the statutory limits.
¶12 After this decision is filed, counsel's obligation to represent Chagolla in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform Chagolla 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). Chagolla may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
CONCLUSION
¶13 Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences.