State v. Romero

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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) ) v. ) ) RICARDO GONZALES ROMERO, ) ) Appellant. ) _________________________________________ ) 1 CA-CR 08-1049 1 CA-CR 08-1052 (consolidated) DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2008-048410-001 DT CR 2007-180710 DT The Honorable Paul J. McMurdie, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/ Capital Litigation Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Michael J. Dew Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Richardo Gonzales Romero In propria persona T H O M P S O N, Judge Florence ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Ricardo Gonzales Romero (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and has done so. ¶2 In 2003, victim, R.F., returned from the grocery store to her apartment. As she got out of the car she was approached by defendant who asked her to party. As R.F. turned to get her grocery bags defendant grabbed her from behind and drug her under some stairs between nearby apartment buildings as she yelled for help. Defendant pushed R.F. down, got unsuccessfully tried to remove her pants. on top of her, and Defendant then told R.F. to suck his dick and when she refused he ejaculated on her face. ¶3 In 2007, victim A.W. walked across a canal when defendant drove by in a white truck, honking at her. A.W. continued walking and heard footsteps coming up behind her. Defendant caught up to A.W., took her cell phone, and pulled her to the ground. Defendant then pulled down the top of her dress and sucked on her nipple. A.W. screamed but defendant punched her face. Defendant then took down his pants and used A.W. s hand to touch his penis before penetrating her with his fingers and penis. 2 A.W. s phone rang and scared defendant who broke the phone by throwing it down. ¶4 Defendant was charged with three counts of sexual assault, class 2 felonies; two counts of kidnapping, a class 2 felony; one count of sexual abuse, a class 5 felony; one count of misdemeanor assault, a class one misdemeanor; one count of robbery, a class 4 felony; and one count of attempted sexual assault, a class 3 felony. twelve person Defendant was found guilty on all counts by a jury in a consolidated trial. Defendant was sentenced to the presumptive sentences on all counts with the three sexual charges assault to run counts to run consecutively concurrently. Defendant presentence incarceration credit. and was the given remaining 260 days The appeals for these two cases have been consolidated. ¶5 Defendant has filed a supplemental brief requesting review of his sexual assault conviction, a class 2 felony, based upon the masturbatory conduct when he forced A.W. to touch his penis. Defendant asserts that the proper charge should have been sexual abuse, a class 5 felony, or, alternatively sexual abuse should have been a lesser included crime of sexual assault. abuse can be a lesser included of sexual assault. 137 Ariz. 468, 470, 671 P.2d 909, 911 (1983). Sexual State v. Wise, No such instruction was requested here and the trial court is not required to sua sponte instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. State v. Lucas, 146 Ariz. 597, 603- 04, 708 P.2d 81, 87-88 (1985), overruled 3 in part on other grounds by State v. Ives, 187 Ariz. 102, 927 P.2d 762 (1996) (no fundamental error in trial court's failure to sua sponte give jury instruction on possible lesser included sexual abuse charge). He also asserts the state altered the definition of sexual contact in the jury instructions. We note, first, that defense counsel supported allowing the exclusion of certain terms which were definition irrelevant given to to the the charge. jury of Second, sexual masturbatory contact and was correct. the intercourse statutory includes See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13- 1401(3). We have read and considered counsel=s brief and have ¶6 searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. was adequately So far as the record reveals, defendant represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Defendant=s counsel=s obligations in this appeal are at an end and he need do no more than inform defendant of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the 4 Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). ¶7 We affirm the convictions and sentences. _________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: ___________________________________ John C. Gemmill, Presiding Judge ___________________________________ Patrick Irvine, 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.