State v. Nunez

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTE: 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. 31.34 DIVISION ONE FILED: 05/24/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RAFAEL ISAAC NUNEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-CR 11-0419 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. S8015CR20081437 The Honorable Lee Frank Jantzen, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender Attorneys for Appellant Kingman T I M M E R, Judge ¶1 resulting Rafael Isaac sentence Nunez after a appeals trial from court his found conviction him guilty and of misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony. Nunez s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, she found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. This court granted Nunez an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. jurisdiction Section 9, to of consider the this Arizona appeal pursuant Constitution and to We have Article Arizona 6, Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033 (West 2012). 1 For the following reasons, we affirm Nunez s conviction and sentence. DISCUSSION ¶2 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300, 451 P.2d 878, 881 (1969). We find none. The record shows that Nunez was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and on appeal, and that the trial court afforded Nunez all his rights under the constitution, our statutes, and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. sentence falls within the range prescribed by law. 1 Nunez s Clark, 196 Absent material revisions after the date of an alleged offense, we cite a statute s current version. 2 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100. CONCLUSION ¶3 After the filing of this decision, counsel s obligations pertaining to Davis s representation in this appeal have ended. status of Counsel need do no more than inform Davis of the the appeal and Davis s future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Davis shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶4 Accordingly, we affirm Nunez s convictions sentence. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Maurice Portley, Presiding Judge /s/ Andrew W. Gould, Judge 3 and

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.