State v. Mayorquin

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. ISMAEL MAYORQUIN, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/02/2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0190 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-170264-001 DT The Honorable Stephen P. Lynch, 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 Christopher V. Johns, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix I R V I N E, Judge ¶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 ( Mayorquin ) 878 asks (1969). this Counsel court to for search Ismael the Mayorquin record for fundamental error. Mayorquin was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. Mayorquin has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Mayorquin s conviction and sentence for kidnapping. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The State charged Mayorquin with kidnapping, a class two felony and dangerous crime against children. At the close of the evidence, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. Mayorquin was convicted as charged. ¶3 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Mayorquin s constitutional rights and Rule 26 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court sentenced Mayorquin to twenty-four years imprisonment in the Arizona Department presentence of Corrections incarceration. The with trial credit for court 500 also days imposed restitution in the amount of $400. DISCUSSION ¶4 Section We 9, exercise of the jurisdiction Arizona pursuant Constitution and to Article Arizona 6, Revised Statutes section 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003). We review Mayorquin s conviction and sentence for fundamental error. See Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). 2 State v. ¶5 Counsel for Mayorquin has advised this court that after a diligent search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law. The court has read and 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, Mayorquin 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 Mayorquin s conviction and sentence. ¶6 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Mayorquin of the status of his appeal and of his future unless, options. upon Defense review, counsel counsel has finds an no 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). Mayorquin 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 Mayorquin to file a pro per motion for reconsideration to thirty days from the date of this decision. 3 CONCLUSION ¶7 Mayorquin s conviction and sentence is affirmed. /s/ __________________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _____________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ _____________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 4

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.