Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Rizona Ourt of Ppeals

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Juanito Alcantar's conviction for third-degree burglary in a memorandum decision. The court summarized the facts of the case, in which detectives observed Alcantar and an accomplice break into a vehicle and steal a stereo. The court found no reversible error in Alcantar's conviction or sentence, though it noted the trial court failed to conduct a proper colloquy before accepting Alcantar's stipulation to two prior felonies at sentencing. However, the court determined the presentence report contained sufficient evidence of the prior convictions such that Alcantar suffered no prejudice. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Rizona Ourt of Ppeals

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    41 views5 pages
    The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Juanito Alcantar's conviction for third-degree burglary in a memorandum decision. The court summarized the facts of the case, in which detectives observed Alcantar and an accomplice break into a vehicle and steal a stereo. The court found no reversible error in Alcantar's conviction or sentence, though it noted the trial court failed to conduct a proper colloquy before accepting Alcantar's stipulation to two prior felonies at sentencing. However, the court determined the presentence report contained sufficient evidence of the prior convictions such that Alcantar suffered no prejudice. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-05-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 1 CA-CR 13-0038

    Original Title

    State v. Alcantar, Ariz. Ct. App. (2014)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Juanito Alcantar's conviction for third-degree burglary in a memorandum decision. The court summarized the facts of the case, in which detectives observed Alcantar and an accomplice break into a vehicle and steal a stereo. The court found no reversible error in Alcantar's conviction or sentence, though it noted the trial court failed to conduct a proper colloquy before accepting Alcantar's stipulation to two prior felonies at sentencing. However, the court determined the presentence report contained sufficient evidence of the prior convictions such that Alcantar suffered no prejudice. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    41 views5 pages

    Rizona Ourt of Ppeals

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Juanito Alcantar's conviction for third-degree burglary in a memorandum decision. The court summarized the facts of the case, in which detectives observed Alcantar and an accomplice break into a vehicle and steal a stereo. The court found no reversible error in Alcantar's conviction or sentence, though it noted the trial court failed to conduct a proper colloquy before accepting Alcantar's stipulation to two prior felonies at sentencing. However, the court determined the presentence report contained sufficient evidence of the prior convictions such that Alcantar suffered no prejudice. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    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.

    IN THE

    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS


    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
    v.
    JUANITO C. ALCANTAR, III, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 13-0038
    FILED 05-29-2014
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CR2012-119290-001
    The Honorable Jeanne M. Garcia, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney Generals Office, Phoenix
    By Joseph T. Maziarz
    Counsel for Appellee
    Maricopa County Public Defenders Office, Phoenix
    By Tennie B. Martin
    Counsel for Appellant

    STATE v. ALCANTAR
    Decision of the Court

    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in
    which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

    G O U L D, Judge:
    1
    Juanito C. Alcantar III (Defendant) appeals from his
    conviction and sentence for one count of burglary in the third degree, a
    class four felony. Defendants counsel filed a brief in accordance with
    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297,
    451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising this Court that after a search of the entire
    appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal. Defendant 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, 2 P.3d 89, 96
    (App. 1999). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the
    Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1) (West 2014).1
    Finding no
    reversible error, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
    3
    In the middle of the day on March 21, 2012, Detective Dever
    was conducting surveillance near 300 South Beck in Tempe. She was
    parked in an unmarked car at the 1200 block of West Third Street when
    she saw a minivan pull up to the address she was investigating. As she
    watched, the driver knocked on the door of the target address, no one
    answered, and he returned to the van. Dever then saw two Hispanic
    Unless otherwise specified, we cite to the current version of the
    applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have
    occurred.
    2
    We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the
    conviction and resulting sentence. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293,
    778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989).
    1

    STATE v. ALCANTAR
    Decision of the Court
    males, Defendant and an accomplice, dressed in hooded sweatshirts exit
    the van. Defendant appeared to put a screwdriver up his right sleeve.
    Dever observed as the two males walked away from the van and out of
    view; a few minutes later they returned for a short time and then left
    again.
    4
    Suspicious, Dever radioed the rest of her surveillance team
    with a description of the two males and their activities. One of her team
    members, Detective Del Rio, was driving on Third Street and saw the
    individuals Dever described; his interest was also sparked by the fact that
    as soon as he drove by the individuals, they put the hoods of their
    sweatshirts up. Del Rio parked his car to watch the target address.
    After he parked, Del Rio heard a car alarm go off to the east of his
    location, and then he saw the same two individuals dressed in hooded
    sweatshirts run past his location heading down an alley toward Devers
    location. Dever was still located outside the target address when she saw
    the individuals run back to the van and the driver quickly drive away.
    The detectives followed the van, took down its license plate number, but
    eventually lost it in traffic.
    5
    Dever went back to the parking lot she had seen the
    individuals run from; she found a blue Honda with a broken passenger
    window and a missing stereo. She was also approached by a woman
    who lived in the complex who had heard the car alarm and had seen
    Defendant hurrying away from the parking lot as he put what appeared
    to be a stereo in his sweatshirt.
    6
    Later, Dever contacted the vans registered owner and
    spoke to the driver of the van, the owners son. Through the driver, she
    eventually came into contact with Defendant. During his interrogation,
    Defendant initially denied any involvement; however, he eventually
    admitted he was with the driver of the van on March 21, 2012 and there
    was a third person with them but claimed they were just driving around.
    7
    The State arrested Defendant and charged him with one
    count of third degree burglary. He was arraigned on May 16, 2012; in
    accordance with Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.2, Defendants last
    day for trial was October 13, 2012. On September 19, 2012, one day before
    the trial date, the State moved to continue the trial because its case agent
    had a death in the family on September 18 and would be unavailable for
    trial. The court granted the motion over Defendants objection. The court
    found the case agent would be unavailable, the Defendant would not be
    unfairly prejudiced by the delay, and the interests of justice required a

    STATE v. ALCANTAR
    Decision of the Court
    continuance. The court moved the trial to October 4, 2012 and excluded 7
    days setting October 22, 2012 as the new last day for trial. The trial was
    continued another time on the States motion and over Defendants
    objection; however, Defendant was tried on October 11-16, 2012, before
    the modified last day.
    8
    Defendant went to trial and was convicted. At sentencing,
    Defendant stipulated that he had two prior felony convictions. The court
    found these two prior convictions and the fact that Defendant had an
    accomplice as aggravating circumstances. However, it concluded the
    aggravators were outweighed by mitigating factors and sentenced
    Defendant to a mitigated term of 7 years. The court also ordered
    Defendant to pay $576.98 in restitution.
    DISCUSSION
    9
    At sentencing, the court did not conduct a Rule 17.6
    colloquy before accepting defense counsels stipulation to his two prior
    felonies. This is fundamental error. State v. Gonzales, 233 Ariz. 455, 458,
    9, 314 P.3d 582, 585 (App. 2013). However, the omission only requires
    resentencing if the defendant was prejudiced. Id.; State v. Morales, 215
    Ariz. 59, 61, 10, 157 P.3d 479, 481 (2007). If there is sufficient evidence
    of the prior convictions in the record there is no need to remand for a
    determination of prejudice. Gonzales, 233 Ariz. at 458, 9, 314 P.3d at 585.
    Defendant did not object to the presentence report which contains the
    two prior convictions to which he stipulated; this conclusively precludes
    prejudice and a remand under Morales. Id. at 11, 12 (The criminal
    history contained in the presentence report combined with the proposed
    stipulation to the same two felonies serves as sufficient evidence under
    Morales to show that [Defendant] was not prejudiced by the failure to
    conduct a colloquy.).
    10
    We have read and considered counsels brief, carefully
    searched the entire record for reversible error, and found none. Clark, 196
    Ariz. at 541, 49, 2 P.3d at 100. Counsels obligations pertaining to
    Defendants representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do
    nothing more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and his
    future options, unless counsels 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). Defendant
    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.

    STATE v. ALCANTAR
    Decision of the Court
    CONCLUSION
    11
    For the above reasons, Defendants conviction and sentence
    is affirmed.

    :gsh

    You might also like