Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0401
04-28-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ISRAEL ANTONIO ROJO, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Frances J. Gray 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2012-143021-002
The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Frances J. Gray
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. GOULD, Judge:
¶1 Defendant Israel Antonio Rojo ("Rojo") appeals from his conviction and sentence for misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony with one prior felony conviction. Rojo's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal. Rojo was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and did not do so.
¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review "the entire record for reversible error." State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). 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), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1) (West 2015). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Unless otherwise specified, we cite to the current version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have occurred.
Facts and Procedural History
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resulting sentences. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989).
--------
¶1 On the night of August 12, 2012, around 11:30 PM, officers responded to the sound of gun shots near Jaguars Club, a night club. Upon arrival to the area, they identified the gunshots as coming from a gold Honda traveling on a road near the club. When the officers attempted to stop the vehicle, both the officers and club security saw a gun thrown out the passenger window. The officers arrested both Rojo, a passenger in the vehicle, and the driver. The officers subsequently recovered the gun thrown from the vehicle as well as a gun located under the driver's side of the vehicle.
¶3 Rojo's hands were swabbed for gunshot residue. The swabs were found to have particles associated with gunshot residue.
¶4 On August 22, 2012, Rojo was indicted on misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony; hindering prosecution in the first degree, a class five felony; and threatening or intimidating, a class one misdemeanor. On the first day of trial, the State dismissed the threatening or intimidating charge. During the trial, the State presented evidence that Rojo had previously been convicted of a felony and had not had his rights to possess a gun restored.
¶5 At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Rojo not guilty of hindering prosecution, but guilty of misconduct involving weapons.
¶6 Rojo was sentenced to a presumptive term of four and a half years. The sentence was ordered to be served concurrent with Rojo's sentence in another case, CR 2013-002332-001 DT. Rojo was given 352 days' presentence incarceration credit.
Discussion
¶7 We have read and considered counsel's brief, carefully searched the entire record for reversible error and found none. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 49. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and substantial evidence supported the finding of guilt. Rojo was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. At sentencing, Rojo and his counsel were given an opportunity to speak and the court imposed a legal sentence.
¶8 Counsel's obligations pertaining to Rojo's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform Rojo 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 (1984). Rojo 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.
Conclusion
¶9 For the above reasons, Rojo's conviction and sentence is affirmed.