Opinion
1 CA-CR 21-0160
03-31-2022
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. HECTOR PAUL SOTO, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Linley Wilson Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Mikel Steinfeld Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2020-117427-001 The Honorable Jay R. Adleman, Judge
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Linley Wilson Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Mikel Steinfeld Counsel for Appellant 1
Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge David B. Gass joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
MORSE, JUDGE:
¶1 Hector Paul Soto appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of aggravated assault. After searching the entire record, Soto's defense counsel identified no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Soto was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Soto's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
"We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant." State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996).
¶2 In April 2020, Soto and J.H. were both waiting at a bus stop. J.H. observed Soto acting strangely and handling a knife. When a bus pulled up to the stop, J.H. and Soto both boarded but J.H. went to the bus driver, I.U., and informed her that Soto had a knife, possibly was on drugs, and should not be on the bus. I.U., who was seated in the driver's seat of the bus behind a Plexiglass barrier installed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, then asked Soto several times to leave the bus. When Soto did not, I.U. told him that she was going to call the police and called dispatch for assistance. Soto became angry and began cursing at I.U. He then approached I.U. and moved under the Plexiglass barrier, coming within an arm's length of I.U. with the knife in his hand. I.U., who had nowhere to retreat, "started to beg" Soto, saying "No. No. No. Sir, let's just go." I.U. then exclaimed to Soto that J.H. had complained about him.
¶3 Soto withdrew back under the barrier and, with the knife, chased J.H. off the bus. J.H. retreated from Soto through the gas station by the bus stop. Then J.H. pulled out a baton and brandished it. But Soto continued to advance on J.H. with the knife. Soto came within five to ten 2 feet of J.H., removed his shirt, and declared "I'm going to . . . kill you." Then, J.H. pulled a gun from a waist holster and pointed it at the ground. After seeing the gun, Soto ran away.
¶4 Soto was later taken into custody and charged with two counts of aggravated assault, both class three felonies under A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(2) and -1204(A)(2) (intentionally placing another in reasonable apprehension of physical injury using a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument). He was tried in March 2021. At trial, I.U., J.H., and three police officers testified and the State presented surveillance video from the bus. The jury convicted Soto on both counts of aggravated assault. During a separate aggravation phase, the jury found both counts were dangerous offenses and caused emotional harm to the victims. The superior court later found that Soto had two prior historical felony convictions after a separate hearing in which the State presented evidence of Soto's prior convictions. The superior court found Soto to be a category three repetitive offender and sentenced him to two concurrent fourteen-year terms of imprisonment. Soto timely appealed and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶5 Our review of the record reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and the record reveals that counsel represented Soto at all stages of the proceedings. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 19.2. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Soto is guilty of the charged offenses. See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16 (2011). The jury was comprised of twelve members. See A.R.S. § 21-102(A). The trial court properly instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the elements of the charged offenses. The court received a presentence report. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.4. At sentencing, Soto was given an opportunity to speak and the court stated on the record the evidence and factors it considered in imposing the sentences. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10. The sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-701, -703, -711.
CONCLUSION
¶6 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Soto's convictions and sentences. Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Soto of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no 3 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). Soto shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. 4