From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Garcia

COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DEPARTMENT C
Feb 14, 2012
No. 1 CA-CR 11-0447 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2012)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CR 11-0447

02-14-2012

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ADRIAN CHAVEZ GARCIA, Appellant.

Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Charles R. Krull, Deputy Public Defender Attorney for Appellant


NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED

EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.

See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24


MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not for Publication -Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)


Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Cause No. CR2008-162570-002 DT

The Honorable James T. Blomo, Judge

AFFIRMED

Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel

Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee

Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Charles R. Krull, Deputy Public Defender Attorney for Appellant

Phoenix DOWNIE, Judge

¶1 Adrian Chavez Garcia timely appeals from the determination that he violated his probationary terms and the ensuing disposition of the probation violation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asks that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339, 857 P.2d 388, 391 (App. 1993). Despite being given the opportunity, Garcia did not file a supplemental brief in propria persona.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Garcia pled guilty to aggravated assault and possession or use of marijuana, both class 1 misdemeanors. In November 2008, he was sentenced to concurrent 18-month terms of probation.

¶3 The Adult Probation Department petitioned to revoke Garcia's probation in April 2010. Garcia admitted violating his terms of probation, and the court reinstated him on probation, extending the term to November 14, 2010. Disposition of this probation violation is not at issue in this appeal.

¶4 The Adult Probation Department again petitioned to revoke Garcia's probation in June 2010. It alleged Garcia had committed new criminal offenses and had failed to report to his probation officer as directed. The court set a non-witness violation hearing. It later consolidated that hearing with Garcia's trial on the new offenses. A jury found Garcia guilty of resisting arrest on March 2, 2011. The court found Garcia had violated his probation due to the commission of this new offense and reinstated him on probation for 16 months, concurrent with the probationary term imposed for the resisting arrest conviction.

DISCUSSION

¶5 We have read and considered the brief submitted by Garcia's counsel and have reviewed the entire record. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find no fundamental error. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Garcia was present at all critical phases of the proceedings and was represented by counsel.

¶6 The court had a factual and legal basis for concluding Garcia violated his terms of probation. One term was that he "obey all laws." While on probation, Garcia committed the offense of resisting arrest. The court did not err by reinstating him on probation, with an extended term, for this violation.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We affirm the judgment of the superior court. Counsel's obligations pertaining to Garcia's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform Garcia of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals 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). On the court's own motion, Garcia shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

_____________________

MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge

CONCURRING:

___________________________________

PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge

___________________________________

LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Chief Judge


Summaries of

State v. Garcia

COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DEPARTMENT C
Feb 14, 2012
No. 1 CA-CR 11-0447 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Garcia

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ADRIAN CHAVEZ GARCIA, Appellant.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DEPARTMENT C

Date published: Feb 14, 2012

Citations

No. 1 CA-CR 11-0447 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2012)