STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANGEL MICHAEL CAYEROS
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 SEP 14 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ANGEL MICHAEL CAYEROS, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0298-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2009159815001DT Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Linda Van Brakel Bruce F. Peterson, Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate By Consuelo M. Ohanesian H O W A R D, Chief Judge. Phoenix Attorneys for Respondent Phoenix Attorneys for Petitioner ¶1 Pursuant to a plea agreement entered at a settlement conference, petitioner Angel Cayeros was convicted of aggravated robbery with one historical prior felony conviction and sentenced to a stipulated, slightly aggravated prison term of seven years. Cayeros challenged the validity of the plea in his petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and the court denied relief. This petition for review followed. We will not disturb the trial court s ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006). ¶2 In his petition for post-conviction relief, Cayeros argued, as he had in a motion to withdraw the plea he had filed before sentencing but the trial court denied, there was an insufficient factual basis to support the plea. In a thorough, well-reasoned minute entry, the court rejected his argument, which it clearly identified, and resolved correctly and in a manner that permitted review by this court. No purpose would be served by restating the court s ruling here. Rather, we adopt the court s ruling. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). Specifically, based on the extended record, Cayeros has not sustained his burden of demonstrating the court abused its discretion when it found that the commissioner who had accepted the plea had been presented with sufficient information to establish Cayeros had used force to gain possession of beer he had taken in the charged crime, had done so in the presence of accomplices, and had not used such force merely to escape. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1901 through 13-1903; see also State v. Celaya, 135 Ariz. 248, 252, 660 P.2d 849, 853 (1983) (robbery occurs when force used to either take the property or to resist the retaking of 2 the property, but is not committed when the thief has gained peaceable possession of the property and uses no violence except to resist arrest or effect his escape ). ¶3 We grant Cayeros s petition for review but we deny relief. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., 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.
