Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0492
02-16-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GABRIEL WILLIAM GANADOS, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Jeffrey L. Force Counsel for Appellant
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Maricopa County
No. CR2014-126178-001
The Honorable Richard L. Nothwehr, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Jeffrey L. Force
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Patricia K. Norris 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 Gabriel William Ganados has advised us that he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law after searching the entire record and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Ganados 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) (citation omitted).
¶2 Ganados and his girlfriend, J.A., lived together, along with Ganados' three children. The facts leading to the charges started one Saturday while they were fishing, when Ganados called J.A. and accused her of flirting with others as she supervised two of the children in a nearby play area. The tension and bickering continued after they returned home as Ganados continued drinking throughout the day.
¶3 As J.A. was preparing dinner, she looked through the kitchen blinds to check on the dogs outside. Ganados came into the kitchen angry, told her "not to touch the . . . dogs," and grabbed her by the throat. When she tried to explain, he slapped her and told her not to talk back. He told her that she "needed to learn how to act," and, if she was not going to learn, that he was going to have to teach her, and grabbed her under her jawline, lifted her off the ground, and squeezed her neck as he cursed at her and said he wanted to kill her. After he let her go, J.A. locked herself in the bathroom. After unsuccessfully trying to break through the door, he told her to pack up and leave.
¶4 After packing, and hearing the children crying, J.A. fought her way past Ganados, who, in trying to block her, kicked, slapped, and spat at her. She heard him yelling "Where the f*** is my gun?" before he accosted her in the laundry room, and again grabbed her by the throat. When she told him to look for it in its normal location, he dropped her, retrieved the gun, and pointed it at her. He only lowered the gun when she reminded him that there were children in the house, and begged him to "just let me go, just let me leave." After he refused to give J.A. her paycheck, she left the house.
¶5 She drove around for several hours and then went to a hotel. The hotel desk clerk called the police after encouraging J.A. to contact the police and hospital. J.A. was taken to the emergency room, and her injuries were later documented by a forensic nurse.
¶6 Ganados was indicted for aggravated assault, assault, and disorderly conduct, all of which were alleged to be domestic-violence offenses. During the trial, Ganados testified on his own behalf, but the jury found him guilty as charged. The court then held a Phase 2 hearing, and the jury found that the aggravated assault involved serious physical injury, caused physical, emotional, or financial harm to J.A., and was committed in the presence of a child. During the sentencing hearing, the court suspended the sentence and placed Ganados on standard probation for three years on each count, ordered a four-month jail sentence as a term of probation for the misdemeanor assault, a domestic violence offense, and ordered him to pay restitution.
¶7 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).
We cite the current version of the applicable statutes absent changes material to this decision. --------
DISCUSSION
¶8 We have read and considered the opening brief, and have searched the entire record for reversible error. We find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Ganados was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits.
¶9 After this decision is filed, counsel's obligation to represent Ganados in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform Ganados of the status of the appeal and Ganados' 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). Ganados may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
CONCLUSION
¶10 Accordingly, we affirm Ganados's convictions and sentences.