Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 16-0723
10-19-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. AARON JAMES ORTEGA, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Jeffrey L. Force 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR 2013-001132-001
The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Jeffrey L. Force
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined. THOMPSON, Judge:
¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Aaron James Ortega (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so.
¶2 In the early hours of the morning in November 2012, a family awoke to the sound of a man screaming outside their home. Soon after, the man began pounding on the doors and windows of the family's home. When thirty minutes had passed with no end to the disturbance, the family contacted the police. Phoenix Police Officers Zachary Wright and Douglas Kies responded to the call. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers observed the defendant standing in the front yard of the home and approached. When asked his name and what he was doing, the defendant did not respond, instead continuing to scream incoherently.
¶3 The officers attempted to detain the defendant to identify him, but he immediately threw back both arms and took on a "fighting stance." As the officers attempted to restrain the defendant and take him to the ground, the defendant kicked his feet and jerked his elbows back toward the officers. While lying face-down on the ground, the defendant tucked his hands underneath his body, at which point Officer Wright struck the defendant "two or three times" in the upper back with his flashlight. Officer Kies also struck the defendant's upper back two to three times with a closed fist. As a result of the strikes, the defendant removed his hands from beneath his body, and the officers were able to handcuff the defendant and place him in a patrol car. Both officers sustained minimal injuries from the altercation.
¶4 The state charged defendant with two counts of aggravated assault, one count of resisting arrest, and one count of disorderly conduct. The court on two separate occasions granted defendant's motions requesting a Rule 11 evaluation. After defendant's completion of the Restoration to Competency Program, the court found defendant competent to stand trial pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-4510(B) (2010). A jury found defendant guilty as charged as to one count of aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct. The same jury found that defendant committed the charged offenses while on probation for an earlier conviction. Upon finding that defendant had three prior felony convictions, the trial court sentenced defendant to the presumptive terms of ten years' and 3.75 years' incarceration for the aggravated assault and resisting arrest charges, respectively. The court ordered the terms to run concurrently and granted defendant 980 days of presentence incarceration credit. The court also sentenced defendant to six months' incarceration for the disorderly conduct charge, concurrent with the above charges, and awarded defendant six months' presentence incarceration credit.
The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to count 2 for aggravated assault of Officer Kies. The court declared a mistrial as to that count and later dismissed the charge without prejudice. --------
¶5 We have read and considered defendant's Anders brief, and we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendant had a fair trial, he was present or represented by counsel at all critical stages prior to and during trial, as well as during the verdict and at sentencing. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdicts, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits.
¶6 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform defendant of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
¶7 We affirm the convictions and sentences.