STATE OF ARIZONA v. LUIS CARLOS DORAME-RUIZ

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 SEP 12 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. LUIS CARLOS DORAME-RUIZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0091 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GILA COUNTY Cause No. CR201000636 Honorable Peter J. Cahill, Judge AFFIRMED Emily Danies Tucson Attorney for Appellant E S P I N O S A, Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Luis Dorame-Ruiz was convicted of second- degree trafficking in stolen property and false reporting to a law enforcement officer. He was sentenced to a 6.5-year prison term for trafficking in stolen property and a concurrent 180-day jail term for false reporting. 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 record but has found [n]o arguable question of law to raise on appeal and asking this court to review the record for fundamental error. Dorame-Ruiz has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts. State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed that Dorame-Ruiz transferred stolen property a compound bow and a recurve bow to another, knowing the bows had been stolen, and that he misled a police officer who was investigating the theft of the bows. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the jury s verdicts. See A.R.S. §§ 13-2301(B), 132307(A), 13-2907.01(A). ¶3 Further, Dorame-Ruiz s sentences were within the prescribed statutory range and were imposed lawfully. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 13-707(A)(1), 13708(A), 13-2307(C), 13-2907.01(B). Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, Dorame-Ruiz s convictions and sentences are affirmed. /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, 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.