From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Marquez

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Jun 30, 2020
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0076 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0076

06-30-2020

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. KRYSTAL MONIQUE MARQUEZ, Appellant.

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Michael O'Toole Counsel for Appellee Sharmila Roy Attorney at Law, Laveen By Sharmila Roy 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2015-000402-001
The Honorable John Christian Rea, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Michael O'Toole
Counsel for Appellee Sharmila Roy Attorney at Law, Laveen
By Sharmila Roy
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge D. Steven Williams joined. WINTHROP, Judge:

¶1 Krystal Monique Marquez ("Appellant") appeals her conviction and sentence for tampering with physical evidence. Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating that she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law. Appellant's counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating this court reviews the entire record for reversible error). Appellant was provided the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but she has not done so.

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, art. 6, § 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64 (App. 1994).

¶3 Appellant lived in a second-floor apartment with her boyfriend and three children. Appellant's family friend, A.S., and his girlfriend, L.C., were also living temporarily in Appellant's apartment. On April 22, 2015, while Appellant was cleaning and L.C. was taking out the trash, Mario Martinez ("Martinez"), another family friend of Appellant's, arrived at the apartment. When L.C. returned from taking out the trash, Appellant told her that Martinez and A.S. were fighting in the closed bathroom. L.C. opened the bathroom door slightly, looked in, and saw Martinez stab A.S. in the chest with a knife.

¶4 Martinez quickly left the apartment while L.C. assisted A.S. on the bathroom floor by giving him a towel to stop his bleeding. Appellant told L.C. to take A.S. outside. L.C. helped A.S. walk out of the apartment, where he sat on the walkway, leaning against a chair or a loveseat located outside Appellant's door. Subsequently, a neighbor helped L.C. get A.S. downstairs, where A.S. was laid on the ground and L.C. called 9-1-1. Around 3:30 p.m., Phoenix Police Officer Kallemeyn responded to the scene and performed CPR on A.S., who was eventually taken to the hospital in an ambulance. A.S. died from his injuries the next day.

¶5 Shortly after A.S. was taken to the hospital, Officer Fisher and Officer Smith from the Phoenix Police Department arrived at Appellant's home to further check on the safety of the occupants and to look for the perpetrator. The officers knocked on the door and announced, "Phoenix Police." While outside Appellant's door, the officers noticed blood on the chair or loveseat. When Appellant opened the door, the officers noted a strong bleach odor and asked to enter. Appellant allowed the officers inside where they performed a security sweep.

¶6 During the security sweep, the officers found four children in a bedroom watching cartoons. In the bathroom, the officers noticed a small drop of what appeared to be blood on the wall and on the door frame. They also found a wet knife in the bathtub. In the kitchen, the officers noticed a mop bucket filled with a liquid they presumed was bleach.

¶7 When the officers asked Appellant what happened, she told them that A.S. had entered her apartment to use the bathroom and may have left his knife there. Appellant also told the officers that five to ten minutes later A.S. came back and knocked on her door. When she answered and looked outside, Appellant stated that she saw A.S. sitting on the chair or loveseat with L.C. and noticed he looked cut. Appellant gave A.S. some water and shut the door. After the conversation, Officer Fisher secured the apartment while Appellant sat on her living room couch and the children remained in the bedroom.

¶8 Later that afternoon, Detective Maldonado of the Phoenix Police Department entered the apartment seeking further information about the stabbing from Appellant. Detective Maldonado spoke with Appellant for about three minutes before he read her Miranda rights. Appellant maintained that no crime occurred in her apartment.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). --------

¶9 At 10:20 p.m., a search warrant was obtained. The ensuing search revealed a plastic bag buried at the bottom of a trash can in the kitchen that contained a black T-shirt, a toilet seat cover, a bathmat, and the scabbard of a knife, all with apparent bloodstains. Later, DNA tests on the scabbard, toilet seat cover, and T-shirt showed a match to A.S.' DNA. In addition, DNA from the drops of blood found in the hallway and on the bathroom floor also matched A.S.' DNA.

¶10 Another knife was located outside the apartment complex. A major component of DNA on the blade matched A.S. and the major component on the release button matched Martinez. L.C. identified the knife found in the bathtub as belonging to A.S.

¶11 On June 22, 2015, the State charged Appellant by indictment with hindering prosecution in the first degree, a class five felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2512; and tampering with physical evidence, a class six felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2809.

¶12 An evidentiary hearing on Appellant's motion to suppress statements and motion to suppress evidence was held on November 18, 2016. The trial judge found that there was probable cause for the search warrant, the search warrant was not overbroad or vague, Appellant consented to the security sweep, and Appellant's statements were made voluntarily.

¶13 Appellant did not testify at trial, but her counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict Appellant. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury acquitted Appellant of felony hindering prosecution and returned a guilty verdict for felony tampering with physical evidence. The trial court found that Appellant had two non-historical prior felony convictions, and determined that the current offense was non-dangerous, but repetitive. The trial judge sentenced Appellant to a mitigated term of one year in the Department of Corrections, and credited Appellant for thirty-eight days of presentence incarceration. The mitigated factors included Appellant's reliable participation throughout three years of court proceedings, her young age at the time of her prior convictions, and strong family support. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

ANALYSIS

¶14 We have reviewed the entire record for fundamental error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and spoke at sentencing. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with her constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶15 After filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Appellant's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the appeal and of her future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Appellant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶16 Appellant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Marquez

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Jun 30, 2020
No. 1 CA-CR 19-0076 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2020)
Case details for

State v. Marquez

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. KRYSTAL MONIQUE MARQUEZ, Appellant.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Jun 30, 2020

Citations

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0076 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2020)