STATE OF ARIZONA v. MARK ANTHONY HERNANDEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MARK ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0142 Filed October 8, 2014 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20132478001 The Honorable Richard D. Nichols, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Erin K. Sutherland, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. HERNANDEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Vásquez and Judge Brammer1 concurred. H O W A R D, Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Mark Hernandez was convicted of second-degree burglary, a class three felony. The trial court placed Hernandez on probation for a period of three years and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $5,731.82. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record and has asked this court to search the record for error. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and we conclude it supports counsel s recitation of the facts. Hernandez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in October 2012, the victim returned home to find a screen missing from her front window, her house disheveled, and over $6,000 worth of items missing from her home, including her mother s wedding dress, a camera, several musical instruments, a ring, and medication. Fingerprints found on the victim s television set matched Hernandez s fingerprints. Neither the victim nor her husband knew Hernandez, nor had he performed any work on televisions or had 1 The Hon. J. William Brammer, Jr., a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and the supreme court. 2 STATE v. HERNANDEZ Decision of the Court any reason to be in the victim s home. We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of the elements necessary for Hernandez s conviction, see A.R.S. § 13-1507(A), and the probation imposed is an authorized disposition, see A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(2). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Therefore, we affirm Hernandez s conviction and disposition. 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.
