Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0279
07-19-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ISAAC SHAQUILLE CISCO, Appellant.
COUNSEL Vanessa C. Moss, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20172324001
The Honorable Michael Butler, Judge
AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED
COUNSEL Vanessa C. Moss, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Isaac Cisco was convicted of fleeing from a law enforcement vehicle, criminal damage, aggravated assault with deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, and two counts of endangerment. The trial court found he had one historical prior felony conviction and sentenced him to concurrent, partially mitigated and presumptive prison terms, the longest of which is 6.5 years. Counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), asserting she reviewed the record but found no "meritorious, non-frivolous" issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, counsel has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Cisco has not filed a supplemental brief.
Counsel suggests there may be a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that Cisco may want to raise in a post-conviction relief proceeding pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P.
We note that counsel failed to mention the sentence imposed and has not directed us to evidence supporting the value element of the criminal damage conviction. Additionally, after counsel had filed an Anders brief, we noted the record did not contain the transcript of the prior convictions trial and ordered that it be filed with this court. We subsequently directed counsel to file a new Anders or merits brief. Counsel filed a revised Anders brief, still failing to mention the sentence or evidence supporting the value of the damaged property. We instruct counsel to, in the future, include all relevant citations to the record.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1201(A), (B), 13-1203(A)(1), 13-1204(A)(2), (E), 13-1602(A)(1), (B)(3), 28-622.01(1), 28-624(C). In May 2017, a police officer responded to a "fight brewing" call from a group home for juveniles involving a visitor "associated with [a] black Mustang," parked in front of the home. The Mustang pulled away when the officer arrived, and, concerned that juveniles from the home may have been in the car, the officer activated the emergency lights and spotlight on his marked police vehicle and pursued.
We cite the current version of the statutes in this decision, as they have not changed in relevant part since Cisco committed his offenses.
¶3 A high-speed chase ensued, ending in a collision between the Mustang, driven by Cisco, and another vehicle. The driver in the other vehicle sustained injuries, and his car, valued at approximately $4,491, "appeared to be a total loss." Sufficient evidence also supported the trial court's finding that Cisco had an historical prior felony conviction. The sentences imposed on counts one, two, four, and five are within the statutory limits for a category two offender, and all of the sentences were lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 13-704(A).
When officers apprehended Cisco, they found a baggie of marijuana on his person and drug paraphernalia in the Mustang. The jury acquitted Cisco on the charges of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. --------
¶4 In our review of the record we note that, as defense counsel pointed out at sentencing, the presentence report incorrectly stated the prior conviction occurred in 2016 or 2017, rather than 2013, an error that was repeated in the sentencing order. We thus correct the sentencing order to reflect that the prior conviction occurred in 2013, as shown in the transcripts of the prior convictions and sentencing hearings and the related exhibits. Cf. State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180, ¶ 38 (2013) (when discrepancy between oral pronouncement of sentence and written minute entry exists, oral pronouncement controls and reviewing court can correct minute entry if record clearly identifies intended sentence).
¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Cisco's convictions and sentences but correct the sentencing order to reflect the correct date of the historical prior conviction.