STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAVID MONTIJO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAVID RAY MONTIJO, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0254 Filed February 10, 2016 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201301079 The Honorable Dwight Callahan, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Heard Law Firm, Mesa By James L. Heard Counsel for Appellant STATE v. MONTIJO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Howard concurred. M I L L E R, Judge: ¶1 Appellant David Montijo was convicted after a jury trial of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Montijo on supervised probation for three years, ordering him to serve a jail term of eighty-two days but giving him eight-two days’ credit for time he had already served. Appointed counsel has filed a brief on appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and in compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999).1 Montijo has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, State v. Burns, 237 Ariz. 1, ¶ 72, 344 P.3d 303, 322 (2015), established Detective McCloskey of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, observed Montijo driving at a speed of over ninety miles per hour, and activated the lights and siren of his clearly marked law enforcement vehicle to stop Montijo. McCloskey pursued Montijo, joined by another officer, both operating proper emergency equipment in their marked vehicles in accordance with 1Notwithstanding counsel’s statement that “this case discloses no arguable issues for appeal,” he states the trial court should have admitted exculpatory hearsay and it would have been “proper” for the court to have undertaken “a full hearing on the issue of identification.” Except as necessary to discharge our duty to review the record for fundamental or reversible error, we do not address these issues in light of counsel’s reliance on Anders and Clark, and the absence of a supplemental brief. 2 STATE v. MONTIJO Decision of the Court A.R.S. § 28-624(C), and Montijo fled, evading the officer, thereby violating A.R.S. § 28-622.01. Although Montijo abandoned the vehicle, fled on foot, and was arrested the next day by other officers, McCloskey found personal items inside the car belonging to Montijo, including identification, and identified him at trial as the person he had pursued. ¶3 The record contains ample evidence to support the verdict. As requested, we have reviewed the record for “fundamental or reversible error” and have found none. Nor have we found any error with respect to the trial court’s imposition of the term of probation. We, therefore, affirm the conviction and the probationary term. 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.
