From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ortiz

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division
Sep 18, 2024
2 CA-JV 2024-0034 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sep. 18, 2024)

Opinion

2 CA-JV 2024-0034

09-18-2024

The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael Anthony Ortiz, Appellant.

Megan Page, Pima County Public Defender By David J. Euchner, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant


Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20203937001 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Megan Page, Pima County Public Defender

By David J. Euchner, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant

Presiding Judge Gard authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Staring and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

GARD, Presiding Judge:

¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Michael Ortiz was convicted of sexual assault and kidnapping. The trial court sentenced him to minimum, concurrent prison terms, the longest of which is 5.25 years.

¶2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asserting he has "reviewed the entire record and is unable to find any arguable legal issues to raise on appeal." Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), counsel has provided a factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record and has asked this court to search the record for reversible error. Ortiz has not filed a supplemental brief.

Counsel has proposed as an "arguable issue" that the trial court "violated the Sixth Amendment by permitting the case to be tried to an 8-person jury." While conceding this claim fails under jurisprudence that is binding on this court, he has invited us to "criticize existing law." We decline that invitation.

¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the verdicts, State v. Holle, 240 Ariz. 300, ¶ 2 (2016), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1304(A)(3), 13-1406(A). In October 2020, while they were in his bedroom, Ortiz grabbed A.L.'s head, pulled her hair, and repeatedly forced his penis into her mouth, despite her protestations and attempts to move her head away. Ortiz told A.L. to "be a good girl" and do what he told her and that, if she did not stop crying, he would not tell her friend where to find her. The sentences imposed are within the statutory ranges. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(A), (D), 13-1304(B), 13-1406(B).

¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Ortiz's convictions and sentences.


Summaries of

State v. Ortiz

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division
Sep 18, 2024
2 CA-JV 2024-0034 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sep. 18, 2024)
Case details for

State v. Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael Anthony Ortiz, Appellant.

Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

Date published: Sep 18, 2024

Citations

2 CA-JV 2024-0034 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sep. 18, 2024)