Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 11-0419
05-24-2012
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RAFAEL ISAAC NUNEZ, Appellant.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender Attorneys for Appellant
NOTE: 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. 31.34
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication -
Rule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
Cause No. S8015CR20081437
The Honorable Lee Frank Jantzen, Judge
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix
Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Kingman TIMMER , Judge
¶1 Rafael Isaac Nunez appeals from his conviction and resulting sentence after a trial court found him guilty of misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony. Nunez's counsel 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. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, she found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. This court granted Nunez an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033 (West 2012). For the following reasons, we affirm Nunez's conviction and sentence.
Absent material revisions after the date of an alleged offense, we cite a statute's current version.
DISCUSSION
¶2 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300, 451 P.2d 878, 881 (1969). We find none. The record shows that Nunez was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and on appeal, and that the trial court afforded Nunez all his rights under the constitution, our statutes, and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Nunez's sentence falls within the range prescribed by law. Clark, 196 Ariz, at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100.
CONCLUSION
¶3 After the filing of this decision, counsel's obligations pertaining to Davis's representation in this appeal have ended, Counsel need do no more than inform Davis of the status of the appeal and Davis's 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). Davis shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
¶4 Accordingly, we affirm Nunez's convictions and sentence.
_______________
Ann A. Scott Timmer, Judge
CONCURRING:
_______________
Maurice Portley, Presiding Judge
_______________
Andrew W. Gould, Judge