State v. Sanchez

BROWN, Judge

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2011-149237-001
The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Judge

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee

Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Xochitl Orozco
Counsel for Appellant

Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maurice Portley and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

BROWN, Judge:

¶1 Humberto Martin Sanchez appeals the trial court's order resentencing him for the following convictions: one count of attempted first-degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault with a knife, one count of burglary in the second degree, and one count of threatening or intimidating. Counsel for Sanchez filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising that after searching the record on appeal, she was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. Sanchez was granted the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so.

¶2 Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Sanchez. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

¶3 A jury convicted Sanchez of attempted first-degree murder (Count 1); aggravated assault with a knife, a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument (Count 2); aggravated assault with a rock, a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument (Count 3); aggravated assault by means of force (Count 4); burglary in the second degree (Count 5); and threat or intimidation (Count 7). The jury also found that Counts 1-4 were domestic violence offenses, and the trial court found that Sanchez had one prior felony conviction. The trial court sentenced Sanchez to twenty-two years' imprisonment for Count 1, eighteen years for Count 2 and for Count 3, six years for Count 4, seven years for Count 5, and a six-month jail term for Count 7 with a terminal disposition based on time served.

¶4 On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing, concluding the trial court erred in sentencing Sanchez as a repetitive dangerous offender on Counts 1, 2, and 3 because the State failed to prove that Sanchez had a historical class 1, 2, or 3 felony conviction involving a dangerous offense. State v. Sanchez, 1 CA-CR 13-0308, 2014 WL

3611507, at *6, ¶ 30 (Ariz. App. July 10, 2014) (mem. decision). Thus, we determined that Sanchez should have been sentenced as a first-time dangerous offender under Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-704(A). Id. We further noted that although the error required resentencing on all counts, the sentences imposed as to Counts 4, 5, and 7 were not improper, and the trial court would be permitted to use the same sentencing ranges for those counts at resentencing. Id. at *7, ¶ 31.

¶5 On remand, the trial court resentenced Sanchez to twenty years' imprisonment on Count 1, fourteen years on Count 2, and fourteen years for Count 3. The court imposed the same sentences for Counts 4, 5, and 7 as occurred in the original sentencing proceeding. The trial court awarded Sanchez 1,151 days of presentence incarceration credit and this timely appeal followed.

¶6 We have searched the entire record for reversible error and have found none. The resentencing hearing was conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Sanchez was present at the hearing, and represented by counsel. Sanchez had an opportunity to speak before resentencing, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. Accordingly, we affirm Sanchez's sentences.

¶7 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Sanchez 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). Sanchez shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.