State v. Valencia

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.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RICARDO MORENO VALENCIA, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 05-04-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN 1 CA-CR 08-1019 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-005767-001 DT The Honorable Steven K. Holding, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Maricopa County Public Defender by Eleanor S. Terpstra, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Ricardo Moreno Valencia Appellant I R V I N E, Presiding Judge Florence ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Ricardo Moreno Valencia ( Valencia ) asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. Valencia was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. Valencia has done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Valencia s convictions and sentences for forgery. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The State charged Valencia with four counts of forgery, class four felonies. At the close of the evidence, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. Valencia was convicted as charged. ¶3 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Valencia s constitutional rights and Rule 26 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court sentenced Valencia to three years imprisonment in ADOC for each count with credit for 249 days presentence incarceration. The court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. DISCUSSION ¶4 Section We 9, exercise of jurisdiction pursuant the Arizona Constitution Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 12-120.21(A)(1) 2 and to Article Arizona (2003). We 6, Revised review Valencia s convictions and sentences for fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). ¶5 Through counsel and in his own brief, Valencia argues that: he only committed one crime arising from a single act or event and felony; should the repetitive have court been should sentencing sentenced not for have scheme; and only one he should 4 him sentenced class under a have received additional presentence incarceration credit, beginning from the time he was booked on a separate offense. We disagree. ¶6 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-2002(A)(3) (2010), 1 forgery requires proof of presentment of a document containing false information four title, with different intent documents application registration) to for bearing defraud. (driver s title a Here, and Valencia license, certificate registration, different name presented than and his of vehicle own. At sentencing, the court found that Valencia had one historical prior felony and sentenced him to a mitigated term of three years imprisonment for each count. Because a defendant is entitled to presentence incarceration credit only for time spent in custody pursuant to the offense for which he is charged, State v. Gourdin, 156 Ariz. 337, 339, 751 P.2d 997, 999 (App. 1 We cite the current version of the applicable statute because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 3 1988), the court properly credited Valencia for presentence incarceration credit. ¶7 We also note that the record provides no evidence that a voluntariness hearing was held. Nevertheless, defense counsel made no objection on the basis of voluntariness to the introduction of any of Valencia s prior statements. In fact, no claim or suggestion was presented, either by the evidence or by counsel, that Valencia s prior statements were involuntary. Consequently, we find that no separate voluntariness hearing was required. See State v. Peats, 106 Ariz. 254, 257, 475 P.2d 238, 241 (1970). ¶8 a Counsel for Valencia has advised this court that after diligent arguable search question of of the law. entire The record, court has she read has and found no considered counsel s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Valencia was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. We decline to order briefing and we affirm Valencia s convictions and sentences. ¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Valencia of the status of his appeal and of his 4 future unless, options. upon Defense review, counsel counsel has finds no an further issue obligations appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 15657 (1984). Valencia 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. On the court s own motion, we extend the time for Valencia to file a pro per motion for reconsideration to thirty days from the date of this decision. CONCLUSION ¶10 We affirm Valencia s convictions and sentences. /s/ __________________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _____________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge /s/ _____________________________________ DONN KESSLER, Judge 5

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.