Opinion
1 CA-CR 12-0265
04-30-2013
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. LEOPALDO MUNOZ, Appellant.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Division Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Tennie B. Martin, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 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(Not for Publication -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. CR1994-009670
The Honorable Sheila A. Madden, Commissioner (Retired)
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Division
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender
By Tennie B. Martin, Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix OROZCO, Judge ¶1 Leopaldo Munoz (Defendant) appeals the trial court's order reinstating him on lifetime probation after Defendant violated a term of his probation. Defendant's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising this court that after a search of the entire appellate record, she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Defendant was also afforded leave to file an in propria persona supplemental brief, but he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review "the entire record for reversible error." State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). During our review of the record, we found no reversible error. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's order reinstating Defendant on lifetime probation.
There are several spelling variations of Defendant's name in the record. We use the version contained in the March 28, 2012 disposition hearing minute entry.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
When reviewing the record, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict." State v. Torres-Soto, 187 Ariz. 144, 145, 927 P.2d 804, 805 (App. 1996).
--------
¶3 In November 1994, Defendant was charged with two counts of molestation of a child and one count of attempted molestation of a child. Defendant pled guilty to one count of attempted molestation of a child, a class three felony and a dangerous crime against children. ¶4 On March 6, 1995, the trial court accepted Defendant's plea, dismissed the other two counts, and placed him on lifetime probation. The court also instituted a $20 monthly probation fee and imposed probation sex offender terms. One term prohibited Defendant from initiating, establishing, or maintaining contact with a child under the age of eighteen unless he obtained permission from his probation officer. ¶5 On December 15, 2011, Defendant's surveillance officer (SO) visited Defendant's home for a random visit. The SO observed a young boy sitting on the steps in front of Defendant's house. The SO testified that the boy told her he lived there and referred to Defendant as "Tata." The SO also noticed a backpack and a pair of children's shoes inside Defendant's house by the front door. ¶6 The SO asked the boy to go inside the house to get Defendant, who was taking a nap at the time, and the boy complied. She testified that when she spoke to Defendant, he told her the boy lived across the street and was his wife's grandchild. Defendant told the SO that the boy stopped by earlier that day looking for his mother and grandmother. Defendant testified that he told the boy that his mother and grandmother were not there and sent him away. ¶7 Defendant was arrested the following day. At the time of his arrest, Defendant had also failed to pay his probation fee for two months. The State subsequently filed a petition to revoke Defendant's probation based on Defendant's failure to pay his probation fees and his contact with a child under the age of eighteen without his probation officer's permission. ¶8 Defendant denied the allegations in the State's petition to revoke, and a witness violation hearing was held on March 28, 2012. The court found that Defendant did not willfully fail to pay his probation fees and dismissed that count with prejudice. The court, however, found that Defendant violated the term of his probation that prohibited contact with children under the age of eighteen. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court reinstated Defendant on lifetime probation. ¶9 Defendant timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21.A.1 (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and -4033.A.3 (2010).
DISCUSSION
¶10 We must determine whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court's ruling that Defendant violated the term of his probation that prohibited contact with minors. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence and will affirm if substantial evidence supports the verdict. State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 546, 552, 633 P.2d 355, 361 (1981). "'Substantial evidence' is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419, 610 P.2d 51, 53 (1980). ¶11 During the witness violation hearing, Defendant's probation officer testified that she had never given Defendant permission to have contact with minors, and there was no evidence in Defendant's file that he had ever obtained permission. She testified that she had discussed Defendant's probation terms with him in November 2011, and at that time, Defendant signed a document that contained his probation terms, including the term that prohibited contact with minors. She also testified that Defendant had signed documentation in the past that prohibited contact with children under the age of eighteen unless Defendant obtained permission from his probation officer. ¶12 Defendant's probation officer testified that she had a conversation with Defendant after he was taken into custody on December 16, 2011 during which he admitted to having contact with a minor on December 15, 2011. Defendant also signed a behavior report indicating the same. ¶13 This evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Defendant violated the term of his probation that prohibited contact with minors.
CONCLUSION
¶14 We have read and considered counsel's brief and the entire record on appeal. We have carefully searched the entire appellate record for reversible error and have found none. See Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 49, 2 P.3d at 100. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings. Defendant was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings, and Defendant and his counsel were given an opportunity to speak. ¶15 Counsel's obligations pertaining to Defendant's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform Defendant 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. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶16 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order reinstating Defendant on lifetime probation.
_____________________
PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING: _____________________
PETER B. SWANN, Judge
_____________________
LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge