Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0693
10-21-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MICHAEL S LUCERO, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Joel M. Glynn Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 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. CR2013-106410-001
The Honorable Christine E. Mulleneaux, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Joel M. Glynn
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.
GEMMILL, Judge:
¶1 Michael Lucero appeals from his conviction and sentence for resisting arrest, a class 6 felony, and criminal trespass in the second degree, a class 2 misdemeanor. Lucero's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), in which he stated that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law. He asks this court to examine the record for fundamental error. Lucero was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We view the facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the jury verdict. State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001). The following evidence was admitted at trial.
¶3 On February 7, 2013, Michael Lucero purchased a coffee from the Starbucks Coffee Shop located at 275 East Bell Road, Phoenix. Lucero then went to the Starbucks patio and stacked several pieces of Starbucks patio furniture. Soon thereafter, Lucero began pouring his coffee onto the ground in designs while talking to himself. The Starbucks manager, R.D., went outside and asked Lucero to stop stacking the furniture and pouring his coffee on the ground. Lucero ignored R.D.'s request and continued to pour his coffee in designs on the ground.
¶4 Sometime later, Lucero was heard by R.D. and another Starbucks employee hitting the bathroom walls and doors while screaming loudly. R.D. called the Phoenix Police Department and requested that they trespass Lucero. Lucero exited the bathroom and remained in the store.
¶5 Sergeant Crawford of the Phoenix Police Department responded, dressed in his typical uniform including his badge, radio, vest, sidearm, and handcuffs. Crawford verified that R.D. was the manager and that she wanted Lucero trespassed.
¶6 Crawford asked Lucero multiple times to leave the premises because Starbucks did not want him there anymore. But Lucero refused. Crawford grabbed Lucero's arm and informed him that if he did not leave, he would be placed under arrest for trespassing. Lucero again replied that
he would not go and pulled his arm away from Crawford. Crawford again asked Lucero to leave and informed him that if he refused he would be arrested. Lucero again replied that he would not leave the store.
¶7 Crawford then grabbed Lucero's arm to place him under arrest. Lucero pulled his arm away, spun around, and flailed his arms and kicked his feet while Crawford attempted to control him. Several tables were knocked down in the struggle before Lucero jumped onto the condiment bar while Crawford was holding on to him, resulting in both parties falling to the floor. Finally, after continued struggle, Crawford placed handcuffs on Lucero with the assistance of a Starbucks customer.
¶8 Crawford then attempted to search Lucero for weapons. Lucero objected and began to flail his legs and kick at him. Additional Phoenix Police Department Officers arrived to help Crawford take custody of Lucero.
¶9 At trial, the jury found Lucero guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree and resisting arrest. At sentencing, the court suspended the imposition of sentences and placed Lucero on probation for two years for resisting arrest (as an undesignated felony) and for two months for criminal trespass in the second degree, with each term of probation to be served concurrently.
¶10 Lucero timely appeals and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statute §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and -4033(A)(1) (2010).
DISCUSSION
¶11 Having considered defense counsel's brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The evidence presented supports the convictions and terms of probation fall within the range permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, Lucero was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
¶12 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), counsel's obligations in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Lucero of the disposition 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. Lucero has 30 days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
CONCLUSION
¶13 Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm Lucero's convictions and the imposition of probation.