State v. Sandoval

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. FELIPE SANDOVAL, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/21/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CR 09-0720 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2008-180522-001 DT The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Spencer D. Heffel, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix H A L L, Judge ¶1 Felipe Sandoval (defendant) appeals from his convictions and the sentences imposed. ¶2 Defendant's appellate counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that, after a diligent search of the record, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, & 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). ¶3 We review for fundamental error, error that goes to the foundation of a case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense. See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424, 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988). We view the evidence presented at trial in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181, 182, & 2, 68 P.3d 407, 408 (2003). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶4 Defendant was charged by indictment with one count of burglary in the first degree, a class two dangerous felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13- 1508(A) (2010); one count of aggravated assault, a class three dangerous felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2) (2010); one count of misconduct involving body armor, a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3116(A) (2010); and one 2 count of misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4) (2010). ¶5 The following evidence was presented at trial. In the early morning of December 24, 2008, J.C was lying in bed and heard a loud bang on an interior door of his home. He grabbed his gun, located next to his bed, and yelled [W]ho is it? Moments later, he heard another loud bang on his bedroom door leading to the pool and yelled [W]ho the fuck is this? Defendant shatter. then kicked in a bedroom window, causing it to J.C. saw defendant crouching down and holding a laser pointer. ¶6 J.C. saw the laser scanning shooting, firing five shots. J.C. ran out of the house. the room and started Defendant hit the ground and J.C. went to his neighbor s house and asked him to call the cops. While waiting for the police to arrive, J.C. observed a white sedan racing by the house. ¶7 At approximately 1:00 a.m. on December 24, 2008, Officer W.C. of the Phoenix Police Department was responding to a shots fired call in the vicinity of 17th Avenue and Orchid when he received another shooting call. second call sitting on and the observed curb with defendant blood on at the He responded to the a convenience front of his store shirt. Defendant told Officer W.C. that he had been shot by someone walking down 19th Avenue. The officer then asked defendant to 3 unzip his shirt. The officer noticed that defendant was wearing a camouflage flak vest. ¶8 While the firemen and E.M.T. s were treating defendant, Officer W.C. saw what appeared to be a shiny copper object bullet. sitting on top of defendant s underwear, a spent At trial, D.H., a forensic scientist with the Phoenix Police Crime Lab, testified that the bullet found on defendant was the bullet fired from the J.C. s gun. ¶9 After a four-day guilty on all counts. a prohibited trial, the jury found defendant The parties stipulated that defendant was possessor. The parties also stipulated defendant has multiple prior historical felony convictions. that The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggravated term of 18 years of imprisonment on the count of burglary in the first degree; an aggravated term of 10 years of imprisonment on the count of aggravated assault; the presumptive term of 10 years of imprisonment on the count of misconduct involving body armor; and the presumptive term of 10 years of imprisonment on the count of misconduct involving weapons. The trial court further ordered that all sentences are to run concurrently. ¶10 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 4 of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was given an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentences imposed were within statutory limits. Furthermore, based on our review of the record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant committed the offenses for which he was convicted. ¶11 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this defendant's Counsel need decision, counsel's representation do no more than in this inform defendant of the status of the appeal and his 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, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 15657 (1984). Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. Accordingly, defendant's convictions and sentences are affirmed. _/s/______________________________ PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge . /s/ PETER B. SWANN, 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.