STATE OF ARIZONA v. CINTHIA Z ACUNA-MARTINEZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CINTHIA Z. ACUNA-MARTINEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0356 Filed May 31, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pima County No. CR20150126001 The Honorable Christopher Browning, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Steven R. Sonenberg, Pima County Public Defender By David J. Euchner, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. ACUNA-MARTINEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Howard concurred. M I L L E R, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Cinthia Acuna-Martinez was convicted of second-degree burglary. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Acuna-Martinez on intensive probation for a five-year term, including as a condition of probation a six-month jail term. ¶2 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), asserting that a review of the record revealed no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, counsel has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record” and asks this court to search the record for error. AcunaMartinez has not filed a supplemental pro se brief. ¶3 The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining Acuna-Martinez’s conviction, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. See A.R.S. § 13-1507(A). At trial, S.K. testified she had locked her front door and secured a malfunctioning window before leaving her home on the evening of December 21, 2014, and, when she returned, found the door and window open and Acuna-Martinez standing inside holding S.K.’s television. After being advised of her rights pursuant to Miranda,1 Acuna-Martinez told a police detective she had taken an iPad from S.K.’s home and 1Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 STATE v. ACUNA-MARTINEZ Decision of the Court had been thinking of taking the television, but had not done so. We further conclude the term of probation was authorized by statute and was properly imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901(A), (F); 13902(A)(2); 13-913; 13-1507(B). ¶4 In our examination of the record, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm AcunaMartinez’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.