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. ANTHONY JOE ROMERO, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 04-13-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH No. 1 CA-CR 09-0634 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-006248-001 DT The Honorable Steven P. Lynch, Judge Pro Tempore CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Law Offices of Robert Gaffney By Robert Gaffney Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Scottsdale J O H N S E N, Judge ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), following Anthony Romero s convictions of aggravated assault, a Class 3 dangerous felony; misconduct involving weapons, a Class 4 felony; and two counts of assault, Class 1 and 3 misdemeanors. Romero s counsel searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Romero was given the opportunity supplemental brief but did not do so. court to search the record for to file a Counsel now asks this fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Romero s convictions and sentences. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 before Romero and I.T. had two children together. Father s Day in 2008, I.T. and Romero The evening were in his bedroom, I.T. holding their young child in her arms, when they began arguing.1 When I.T. attempted to leave the room, Romero punched her face, creating a cut above her left eye and leaving a mark over her right eye. ¶3 The next day, M.H., the mother of five of Romero s children, brought three of them to see him. 1 They began arguing Upon review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all inferences against Romero. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). 2 and Romero pushed her to the ground. pointed it at M.H. He then pulled a gun and M.H. went immediately to the police, made a report and told an officer she was afraid for her life. ¶4 Romero was charged with one count of aggravated assault, a dangerous offense; two counts of misdemeanor assault; and one count of misconduct involving weapons. The assaults were charged as domestic violence crimes. three At trial, Romero admitted a prior conviction for disorderly conduct. jury convicted him on all four counts. The He was sentenced to a mitigated sentence of six years imprisonment on the aggravated assault conviction; the maximum sentence of three years imprisonment for misconduct involving weapons; and six months in jail for one misdemeanor assault and 30 days in jail for the other misdemeanor concurrently and assault. Romero was All sentences given credit were for set 268 to run days of presentence incarceration. ¶5 Romero timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010) and -4033 (2010). 3 DISCUSSION ¶6 The record reflects Romero received a fair trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him and was present at all critical stages. ¶7 The State presented both direct and evidence sufficient to allow the jury to convict. circumstantial The jury was properly comprised of eight members with two alternates. The court the properly instructed the jury on the elements of charges, the State s burden of proof and the necessity of a unanimous verdict. was confirmed considered a by The jury returned a unanimous verdict, which juror presentence polling. report The and court addressed received its and contents during the sentencing hearing and imposed a legal sentence on the crimes of which Romero was convicted. CONCLUSION ¶8 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. ¶9 See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations pertaining to Romero s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Romero of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. 4 See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). On the court s own motion, Romero has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for reconsideration. Romero has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review. /s/_______________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge /s/________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, 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.
