STATE OF ARIZONA v. CATHERINE ANN MORAN
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 DEC 27 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CATHERINE ANN MORAN, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0232 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20112356001 Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge AFFIRMED Roach Law Firm, L.L.C. By Brad Roach E S P I N O S A, Judge. Tucson Attorney for Appellant ¶1 After a jury trial held in her absence, Catherine Moran was convicted of forgery. Following a bench trial, which Moran did attend, the trial court found she had two historical prior felony convictions for sentence-enhancement purposes and sentenced her to a mitigated prison term of six years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), and State v. Smith, 171 Ariz. 501, 831 P.2d 877 (App. 1992), avowing he has found no arguable issues on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for any error that might warrant relief, arguing our review is not restricted by Anders to error that can be characterized as fundamental. Moran has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Without deciding whether we agree with counsel s argument regarding the scope of our review under Anders, we have searched the record for any reversible error and have found none. Evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction, State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), established Moran had gone to a Tucson grocery store and had attempted to cash a check that designated her as the payee and was made to appear it had been drawn on the bank account of a Tucson real estate business. The signer testified she had not signed the check, it was unlike any of the business s checks, and she did not know Moran. Moran admitted to a police detective that an acquaintance had printed the check for her, she had never worked for the business, the business never had issued a check to her, and she had 2 intended to keep half of the proceeds to pay rent. From this and other evidence reasonable jurors could find Moran guilty of forgery, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2002(A). ¶3 Moran s mitigated sentence was lawful and imposed in a lawful manner. A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-2002(C). Therefore, the conviction and the sentence imposed are affirmed. /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.
