Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0409
06-17-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. SAUL BELTRAN OJEDA, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Thomas K. Baird 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NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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. CR 2010-005932-001
The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Thomas K. Baird
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. DOWNIE, Judge:
¶1 Saul Ojeda appeals his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of kidnapping in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 13-1105(A)(2) and -1304(A)(1). 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 asked that we review the record for reversible error. Ojeda was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
We view the facts "in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction[s]." State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 546, 552, 633 P.2d 355, 361 (1981).
¶2 On July 7, 2006, a body was discovered near Interstate 17. The decedent, later identified as G.O., had been shot. On July 16, 2006, officers discovered a body with bullet holes in the back "down the road" from where G.O. was found. That decedent was identified as B.G.M.
¶3 Ojeda was indicted on two counts of first-degree murder, both class 1 felonies (count 1 — G.O.; count 3 — B.G.M.) and two counts of kidnapping, both class 2 felonies (count 2 — G.O.; count 4 — B.G.M.). The indictment alleged both independent and accomplice liability. See A.R.S. §§ 13-301 to -304.
¶4 A jury found Ojeda guilty of all counts. For counts 1 and 2, the court imposed concurrent sentences of life and 12.5 years' imprisonment, respectively. Consecutive to those sentences, the court imposed concurrent sentences of natural life and 12.5 years' imprisonment for counts 3 and 4, respectively. Ojeda timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶5 We have read and considered the brief submitted by counsel and have reviewed the entire record. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find no reversible error. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ojeda was present at all critical phases of the proceedings and was represented by counsel. The jury was properly impaneled and instructed. The jury instructions were consistent with the offenses charged. The record reflects no irregularity in the deliberation process.
¶6 The record contains substantial evidence of guilt. See Tison, 129 Ariz. at 552, 633 P.2d at 361 (in reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, "[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict"). "Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 290, 908 P.2d 1062, 1075 (1996). Substantial evidence "may be either circumstantial or direct." State v. Henry, 205 Ariz. 229, 232, ¶ 11, 68 P.3d 455, 458 (App. 2003). We will reverse a conviction "only if there is a complete absence of probative facts to support [the jury's] conclusion." State v. Carlisle, 198 Ariz. 203, 206, ¶ 11, 8 P.3d 391, 394 (App. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
¶7 Kidnapping occurs when a person "knowingly restrains another person with the intent to[] . . . [h]old the victim for ransom." A.R.S. § 13-1304(A)(1). "A person commits first degree murder if[] . . . [a]cting either alone or with one or more other person commits or attempts to commit . . . kidnapping under § 13-1304 . . . and, in the course of and in furtherance of the offense or immediate flight from the offense, the person or another person causes the death of any person." A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(2). "A person is criminally accountable for the conduct of another if[] . . . [t]he person is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of an offense." A.R.S. § 13-303(A)(3) (2005). An accomplice is a person who, "with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense[,] . . . [a]ids, counsels, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing the offense." A.R.S. § 13-301(2).
¶8 The State's witnesses and exhibits offered substantial evidence that Ojeda, either personally or as an accomplice, kidnapped and murdered G.O. and B.G.M.
¶9 G.O. was reportedly a "human smuggler." On July 1, 2006, a man and woman arrived at his Tucson home to be transported to Phoenix. G.O. took them in his vehicle, a white Dodge Intrepid. B.O. heard from G.O. later that day, when he called and told her to "do everything that [the man] was going to say." He advised her not to call the police. A man later demanded that B.O. transfer $500 to Monica Valadez via Western Union. B.O. sent the money. The next day, there was an additional ransom demand. This time, B.O. was directed to transfer funds to Mexico. She made three such transfers. She also gave money to a man she met at a freeway rest stop between Tucson and Phoenix. The individuals at that location were driving G.O.'s vehicle.
Although G.O. and B.O. were not legally married, B.O. referred to G.O. as her husband.
--------
¶10 Prior to trial, search warrants were executed at two apartments in the same complex. Inside apartment 63, officers found an appointment card with the name "Rebecca" on it, a 9mm bullet, vases with candles inside, a Western Union receipt, and a pawn shop receipt with Valadez's name on it. Ojeda's fingerprints were on several candles recovered from apartment 63 and on a drinking glass found in apartment 26. G.O.'s fingerprints were found in the living room closet of apartment 63.
¶11 Monica Valadez lived in apartment 63 with Ojeda, a man named "Miguel," and others. She testified that one day, she was told to go to her room and not come out. She later saw that the closet door, which "always used to be open" was closed, with the couch pulled in front of it. She overheard Miguel and Ojeda on the telephone demanding that the victim's wife pay ransom money. Valadez testified that while that man was being held in the closet, she picked up money at Money Gram and drove Jose de Jesus Colunga-Diaz ("Gonzo") in the Dodge Intrepid to a freeway rest stop to collect more money. The day after that trip, Valadez saw that the couch had been pulled away from the closet door and the man removed. Valadez testified she attempted to disassociate herself from the others. However, Miguel and Ojeda threatened her, pointing a gun at her head and telling her she could not leave because she "knew too much." Miguel instructed Ojeda to watch her and to tie her up if she tried to leave. Valadez testified that Miguel was in charge of operations and Ojeda was "second in command. He was Miguel's right-hand man."
¶12 G.O. was shot multiple times. A forensic scientist testified that shell casings found near his body came from a gun that police recovered in California, which they linked to Ojeda and the other men. See ¶ 16 infra.
¶13 Rebecca Jimenez testified that in June and July of 2006, she was staying with a friend at the apartment complex in question. Jimenez met F.L., who lived in apartment 63, and he asked whether she had identification. He then asked her to pick up money from Western Union, which she did. Jimenez later moved into apartment 63, where several individuals, including Ojeda, Gonzo, and Valadez also lived. Valadez eventually informed Jimenez that the men in the apartment made their living by taking "people and [holding] them for ransom, for money." According to Jimenez, Miguel was in charge of the operation, F.L. was second in command, and Ojeda was third. Gonzo was "like the errand boy."
¶14 Jimenez testified that at one point, the men let a man out of the apartment's closet and asked her to feed him. He then returned to the closet. While the man was in the closet, Jimenez overheard phone calls demanding money. F.L., Miguel, Ojeda, and Gonzo were present when the calls were made and would "all kind of hang around together when this stuff was going on." Jimenez saw that victim one other time, when F.L. handed a gun to Ojeda, who responded, "[n]o, you go." F.L. replied, "I went last time." Ojeda and Gonzo left with the victim and the gun. Before leaving, they had the man exchange his tennis shoes for flip-flops. When B.G.M. was found, he was wearing flip-flops. When Gonzo later returned to the apartment, he said, "We're finished, it's done; we're finished." During the time that the victim was being held in the closet, the men had possession of a white Dodge Neon — a vehicle that B.G.M. owned.
¶15 Jimenez, Miguel, Gonzo, F.L., and Ojeda traveled to Oxnard, California. En route, they passed a sign for Bumblebee, and Ojeda remarked, "this is where it was done at." Ojeda explained that when he pulled out his gun to shoot the man, it "just clicked. It didn't shoot." "The guy took off running." Ojeda "had to fix the gun" and then chase the man. Ojeda said he shot the man in the back.
¶16 J.B. testified that several people, including Ojeda, moved in next door to him in Oxnard in July 2006. Ojeda bragged to J.B. that the men had been kidnapping people in Phoenix and "asking money for them or ransom." Ojeda indicated they had killed at least one man. Ojeda also told J.B. that to ensure one victim was dead, "[h]e moved the body and shot him again." One of the other men showed J.B. a gun, explaining it was used to "do the stuff that they were doing . . . in Phoenix." He asked J.B. to sell it for him. J.B. later sold the gun to M.P., and police officers retrieved the gun from M.P.
¶17 Ojeda offered an entirely different version of events. He testified that he paid someone to help him cross the border into the United States. He was transported to B.O.'s Tucson home. There, Ojeda learned he would have to pay more money. G.O. reportedly took Ojeda to Phoenix in his white Intrepid. Ojeda was taken to a house and then moved to an apartment. Ojeda testified that 12-14 people were in the apartment, including Valadez, Jimenez, and Gonzo. Ojeda testified that two people watched him at all times. His captors reportedly forced him to clean the apartment, accounting for his fingerprints on objects seized by the police. Ojeda stated he was later transported to California, where he was held for three days before being released. Ojeda denied involvement in any kidnappings or shootings. He also denied making the inculpatory statements attributed to him by the State's witnesses.
¶18 The jury was faced with conflicting evidence, and it obviously believed the State's witnesses. "No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to their testimony are questions exclusively for the jury." State v. Clemons, 110 Ariz. 555, 556-57, 521 P.2d 987, 988-89 (1974). Substantial evidence supports Ojeda's convictions.
CONCLUSION
¶19 We affirm Ojeda's convictions and sentences. Counsel's obligations pertaining to Ojeda's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform Ojeda 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, Ojeda 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.