State v. Rodriguez

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/31/2009 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ELIAS RODRIGUEZ Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-CR 08-0894 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-107019-001 DT The Honorable Sam J. Myers, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals Section Attorney for Appellee Phoenix Bruce Peterson, Legal Advocate By Kerri L. Chamberlin, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 Elias Rodriguez ( Rodriguez ) appeals from his conviction and sentence for trafficking in stolen property in the second degree, a class three felony. Rodriquez s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that she has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. 259 (2000). See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. Rodriguez was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We therefrom view the in the light convictions. facts and most all reasonable favorable to inferences sustaining the State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001). ¶3 On January 29, 2008, at approximately 7:30 in the morning, R.L. visited a rental property she owned in Avondale, Arizona. The purpose of her visit was to clean[] up after [her] previous tenant had moved out. When she arrived at the property, of she kicked in. noticed the front door the house had been The door was not in this condition the previous day when she had visited the property, so she called the police for assistance and waited outside of the house for them to responded to arrive. ¶4 R.L. s Officer call. L. They and another entered her 2 police home officer and they did not find anybody inside. Officer L. did notice, however, that copper piping was missing from the home s air conditioning unit. As Officer L. exited the house to speak with D.L., he saw two males on bicycles in an alleyway to the west of the house. The two men saw Officer L. look at them and they immediately turned around and started off down the alleyway. Officer L. was later able to identify one of the men as Rodriguez. ¶5 After speaking with R.L. and learning that the air conditioning unit was intact the previous day when R.L. had visited the property, Officer L. suspected that copper pipes had been stolen from the house. the missing Using his radio, Officer L. informed other police officers in the area that he had been dispatched to an unsecure premise and that copper piping had been taken from the residence. Officer C. was in the area when he heard this announcement over his radio and he went to a nearby closest recycling place where plant. anybody The recycling would try at the to plant sell was any the kind of metal. ¶6 Officer C. arrived approximately 8:30 in the morning. recycling determined that the man was Rodriguez. C. spoke with the plant s at As he was pulling into the plant, he saw a man leaving on a bicycle. Officer plant Officer C. later Once inside the plant, cashier and the cashier informed Officer C. that she had just purchased copper piping 3 that morning. Officer C. called Officer L. and requested that he come to the recycling plant to inspect the pipes. ¶7 At receipt from the the plant, the earlier cashier copper showed transaction the and officers a form seller filled out in order to complete the transaction. the the On the form was a photocopy of the seller s driver s license. The receipt and the photocopied driver s license indicated that it was Rodriquez who sold the copper to the recycling plant. The cashier also showed the officers the surveillance video from that morning. cashier. The video showed Rodriquez selling copper to the The officers then took the copper that was sold to the recycling plant back to D.L s house and they were able to match it to the copper missing from the air conditioning unit. ¶8 Later that day, Officer C. arrested Rodriguez. As Officer C. was placing Rodriquez under arrest, Rodriquez asked if the arrest was about the copper [he] sold today at the recycling place. to sell. He also stated that [s]omebody gave me that After being read his Miranda1 rights, Rodriguez agreed to speak with Officer C. During this conversation, Rodriquez admitted he knew the copper pipes were stolen and that he was paid $25 to sell the pipes to the recycling plant. He also stated that another man committed the burglary and that the copper came from that burglary. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 4 ¶9 Rodriguez was charged with one count of trafficking in stolen property in the second degree. After a trial by a jury, Rodriquez was found guilty as charged. In addition, the trial court found that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodriquez had two prior felony convictions robbery and attempted sale of narcotic drugs. for armed The trial court therefore sentenced Rodriquez to a slightly aggravated prison term of twelve years. ¶10 We Rodriquez timely appeals his conviction and sentence. have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2001), 134033(A) (Supp. 2009), and Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution. DISCUSSION ¶11 Having considered defense counsel s brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The sentence imposed falls within the range permitted by law, and the evidence presented supports the conviction. As far as the record reveals, Rodriquez was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶12 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 5 684 P.2d appeal 154, have Rodriguez of 156-57 ended. the (1984), counsel s Counsel need disposition of do the obligations no more appeal in this than and inform his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Rodriguez has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. CONCLUSION ¶13 The conviction and sentence are affirmed. _____/s/_________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: __/s/____________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge __/s/____________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.