STATE OF ARIZONA v. SYDNEY MICHELE VASQUEZ
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 FILED BY CLERK AUG 19 2011 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. SYDNEY MICHELE VASQUEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO 2 CA-CR 2011-0045 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20071157 Honorable Edgar B. Acuña, Judge AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED R. Lamar Couser Tucson Attorney for Appellant E S P I N O S A, Judge. ¶1 Following a five-day jury trial in 2010, appellant Sydney Vasquez was convicted of four counts of forgery with a credit card, theft by misrepresentation with a value of $250 or more but less than $1,000, fraudulent scheme and artifice, and taking the identity of another person. See A.R.S. §§ 13-2104, 13-1802, 13-2310, 13-2008.1 The trial court found Vasquez had two historical prior felony convictions and sentenced her to concurrent, presumptive sentences, the longest of which is 15.75 years, with credit for time served on the theft by misrepresentation count. ¶2 Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel states he has reviewed the record in compliance with Anders without finding any meritorious issues to raise on appeal and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Vasquez has not filed a supplemental brief. Vasquez s convictions involved the use of a victim s credit card to ¶3 purchase goods at various stores in Tucson on January 22, 2007. Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, the evidence was sufficient to support each of the jury s findings of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). ¶4 During our review of this record, however, we discovered an error in the sentencing minute entry order. On the first day of trial, defense counsel argued, and the state and the trial court agreed, that the evidence did not support aggravated taking the identity of another person pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-2009, a class three felony, as charged in the indictment. Instead, the evidence arguably supported taking the identity of another 1 We refer to the version of A.R.S. § 13-2008 in effect at the time of Vasquez s offenses. See 2005 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 190, § 1. 2 person pursuant to § 13-2008, a class four felony. The court accordingly ordered the indictment amended and the jury, in fact, convicted Vasquez of that lesser felony. ¶5 At sentencing, when the court incorrectly stated Vasquez had been convicted of aggravated taking the identity of another, defense counsel corrected the court, and the court acknowledged, and the state agreed, that Vasquez had indeed been convicted of the class four felony, rather than the aggravated, class three offense. And, Vasquez was correctly sentenced for a class four felony. However, the relevant portion of the sentencing minute entry mistakenly states that Vasquez was convicted of aggravated taking the identity of another pursuant to § 13-2009. Therefore, the sentencing order shall be corrected to reflect that Vasquez was, in fact, convicted on count seven of taking the identity of another, a class four felony, pursuant to § 13-2008. ¶6 In accordance with our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Vasquez s convictions and sentences are affirmed. The technical error in the sentencing minute entry order is corrected as set forth above. /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge 3
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.
