State v. Salayandia
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. ALFREDO HINOJOS SALAYANDIA, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/18/2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0138 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-132179-001 The Honorable Pendleton Gaines, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Kathryn L. Petroff, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 This is 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 Defendant Alfredo Hinojos Salayandia has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant did not avail himself of the opportunity we provided to file a supplemental brief. FACTS 1 ¶2 Defendant was a passenger in a red truck that sped around the victim, who was driving home during the evening of May 20, 2008. The truck blocked her travel, and the Defendant and the driver demanded her purse and cell phone while they were holding guns. The two then helped her remove her child from the car seat and drove away in her vehicle. After they left, the victim took her child to her aunt s house nearby and called 9-1-1. ¶3 After the police relayed the incident over the airwaves, the red truck was located by an air unit and stopped by Phoenix patrol officers. Defendant was driving the truck, and the officers found the victim s wallet and identification inside the truck. 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 ¶4 Within an hour of the carjacking, the Glendale police took the victim to Phoenix, presented two people in separate showups, and asked her whether she could identify either person. identified Defendant both was men as the two involved arrested, and subsequently in the indicted She carjacking. for armed robbery, a dangerous offense; theft of a means of transportation; and misconduct involving weapons. After a Dessureault 2 hearing the trial court found by ¶5 clear and convincing evidence that the show-ups were not unduly suggestive. Defendant subsequently went to trial and the jury convicted him of armed robbery, a dangerous offense, and theft of a means of transportation; they acquitted him of misconduct involving weapons. A month later, he stipulated to two prior felonies and, after proper a allocution, the trial court accepted the stipulation. ¶6 Defendant filed an unsuccessful motion for new trial. requested a mitigation hearing and, after the hearing, He was sentenced to an aggravated prison term of twenty-one years on the armed robbery charge concurrent with an eleven and one-quarter years prison term for the theft of the car. He was also credited with 261 days of presentence incarceration. 2 State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 453 P.2d 951 (1969). 3 DISCUSSION ¶7 We have read and considered the opening brief, and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We have found no reversible error by the experienced trial judge. conducted Procedure. Defendant in compliance with See Leon, 104 the All of the proceedings were Arizona Rules of Criminal Moreover, the record designated on appeal reveals that was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶8 After this decision has been filed, counsel s obligation to represent Defendant in this appeal has ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and Defendant s future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d 154, 157 (1984). Defendant can, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4 ¶9 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. /s/ ___________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, 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.
