State v. Dominguez
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. RAYMOND LEROY DOMINGUEZ, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/18/2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0477 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-119422-001 DT The Honorable Edward O. Burke, 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 Thomas Baird, 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 Raymond Leroy Dominguez 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 us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and has not filed one. FACTS 1 ¶2 Defendant was in a Phoenix alleyway near a Salt River Project ( SRP ) power pole at approximately 11:00 a.m. on January 15, 2008. A homeowner in the neighborhood witnessed him cutting wiring on the pole with reddish bolt cutters and placing the metal in a backpack. When confronted, Defendant exchanged words with the homeowner and left the scene on a chrome mountain bicycle. The homeowner went home, got in his car and started driving, and called the police after locating Defendant. After Defendant was detained, the homeowner positively identified him as the man he saw in the alley. During a search of Defendant s backpack, the police found pieces of snipped [copper] wire and red bolt cutters inside. 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 ¶3 Defendant was charged with criminal damage, a class four felony. At trial, the homeowner, employee, and Defendant testified. a police officer, an SRP The SRP employee testified that copper ground wires had been cut and removed from SRP s power poles in the alley, which caused a serious safety hazard. Although Defendant testified on his own behalf, the jury convicted him as charged. ¶4 At sentencing, the State proved that Defendant had three prior felony convictions. Defendant was then sentenced as a repetitive offender to the presumptive prison term of four and onehalf years, with thirty-three days of presentence incarceration credit. He was also ordered to pay $1400.16 in restitution. DISCUSSION ¶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. See Leon, 104 We find no reversible error. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶6 After this decision has been filed, counsel s obligation to represent Defendant in this appeal has ended. 3 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. ¶7 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. /s/________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, 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.
