STATE v. MONDRAGON-DIAZ
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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/09/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. VIDAL MONDRAGON-DIAZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-CR 11-0492 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-122410-002 DT The Honorable Robert Gottsfield, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, 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 Attorney for Appellant Phoenix G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 Vidal Mondragon-Diaz ( Mondragon-Diaz ) appeals from his eight convictions and accompanying sentences. Mondragon- Diaz s Anders counsel filed a brief in compliance with v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Mondragon- Diaz was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm his convictions and sentences. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We view the in the light therefrom convictions. 668, 669 facts and most all favorable (App. to to inferences sustaining the State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 2001). Mondragon-Diaz worked in a drop house as coyotes. fee reasonable coyotes for help and two co-defendants Victims agreed to pay a crossing the border and transportation to locations within the United States. for After crossing the border illegally, victims were then transported to a drop house in Phoenix and informed that their fees had increased. ¶3 Upon arrival at the drop house, the coyotes confiscated victims belts, wallets, and shoes. Mondragon-Diaz, an a undocumented immigrant who was 2 armed with knife and a firearm, guarded the room where victims were kept. Mondragon- Diaz called the victims families demanding money to secure the victims release and threatened the victims safety in order to convince family members to make a payment. ¶4 Mondragon-Diaz and two codefendants together and represented by separate counsel. were tried Mondragon-Diaz was convicted on the following counts: two counts of kidnapping, a class 2 dangerous felony; three counts of theft by extortion, a class 2 dangerous felony; armed robbery, a class 2 dangerous felony; smuggling, a class 3 felony; and misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 felony. and misconduct involving All counts except for the smuggling weapons counts were found to be terms of dangerous offenses. ¶5 Mondragon-Diaz was sentenced to mitigated seven years in prison for each conviction of kidnapping, theft by extortion, and armed robbery. He was sentenced to mitigated terms of one year in prison on his convictions for smuggling and misconduct involving weapons. served concurrently. The All sentences were ordered to be court also credited Mondragon-Diaz with 433 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶6 This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13- 3 4031 (2010) and -4033(A)(1) (2010). 1 DISCUSSION ¶7 Having considered defense counsel s brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The evidence presented supports the convictions, and the sentences imposed fall within the ranges permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, Mondragon-Diaz was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶8 684 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, P.2d appeal 154, have 156-57 counsel s Counsel ended. (1984), need do obligations no more than in this inform Mondragon-Diaz of the disposition of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission review. to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for Mondragon-Diaz has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. 1 We cite to the current versions of statutes when no revisions material to this decision have occurred since the date of the alleged offenses. 4 CONCLUSION ¶9 The convictions and sentences for all counts affirmed. are ___/s/__________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: ____/s/____________________________ PETER B. SWANN Judge ____/s/____________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, 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.
