State v. Sanchez-Gonzales
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. ) ) EDUARDO SANCHEZ-GONZALEZ, ) ) Appellant. ) _________________________________ ) 1 CA-CR 09-0306 DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/21/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2008-164960-001 DT The Honorable James T. Blomo, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General Phoenix By Kent Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals and Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Edith M. Lucero, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶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 Eduardo Sanchez-Gonzalez (defendant) 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 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 he has not done so. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Defendant was charged with robbery, a class 4 felony after forcibly removing a cell phone from the victim T.S. T.S. made contact with police responding to 9-1-1 calls about the incident. Defendant was apprehended nearby and the cell phone was recovered from a trash can defendant was standing next to. Police officers Initially, T.S. conducted stated identification, but a one-on-one that later she she was identification. unable identified to make as the not defendant an rob individual who had robbed her. ¶3 At trial, defendant testified that he did T.S., that he d never seen her before and asserted that he had also just been robbed of his cell phone. ¶4 A jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and ordered defendant to serve two conviction years and probation. sentence. Defendant We have 2 timely jurisdiction appealed pursuant his to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1) (2010). ¶5 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. reveals the Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. ¶6 We affirm the conviction and sentence. /S/ _____________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ___________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge /S/ ___________________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge 3
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.
