Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0269
02-13-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GILBERTO LOPEZ FIMBRES, Appellant.
COUNSEL Dean Brault, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex D. Heveri, Assistant Legal Defender, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.24.
Appeal from the superior Court in pima County
No. CR20150905001
The Honorable Kenneth Lee, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Dean Brault, Pima County Legal Defender
By Alex D. Heveri, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
VÁSQUEZ, Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Gilberto Fimbres was convicted of three counts of sexual conduct with a minor under twelve and two counts of sexual abuse of a minor under fifteen, all dangerous crimes against children, and public sexual indecency to a minor under fifteen and indecent exposure to a minor under fifteen. The trial court sentenced Fimbres to consecutive prison terms, which included three sentences of life without the possibility of release for thirty-five years.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the entire record and found no "meritorious issue to argue on appeal," and asking that we search the record for error. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has also provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record." Fimbres has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt. The evidence presented at trial showed that in 2014 and 2015, Fimbres engaged in multiple acts with the victim, his girlfriend's granddaughter, who was approximately six years old. Those acts included sexual intercourse with the victim, inserting his finger into the victim's "private" and her anus, fondling the victim's breasts, oral contact with the victim's breasts, engaging in
masturbatory conduct while touching the victim, and showing the victim his penis. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1401, 13-1402, 13-1403, 13-1404, 13-1405. We further conclude the sentences are within the statutory limits and were imposed properly. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-705(A), (F).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Fimbres's convictions and sentences.