STATE OF ARIZONA v. MIRANDA SUE PADILLA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK 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 JUN 18 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MIRANDA SUE PADILLA, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0217 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20094802001 Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Rebecca A. McLean Tucson Attorneys for Appellant K E L L Y, Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Miranda Padilla was convicted of two counts of custodial interference. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed her on concurrent one-year terms of probation. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the entire record and has been unable to find any arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Padilla has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury s finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed Padilla had arranged for a neighbor to pick up her two daughters from school without the knowledge or permission of their father, who had sole legal custody of the girls. She directed the neighbor to bring the girls to two different homes and, although she told police officers looking for the girls that she did not know where they were, she communicated with the girls during the period when they were missing from their father s custody. We further conclude the probationary terms are appropriate. See 2011 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 224, § 1; 2009 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 125, § 2. ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Padilla s convictions and probationary terms are affirmed. /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge 2
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.
