STATE OF ARIZONA v. JORGE LUIS HERNANDEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JORGE LUIS HERNANDEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0113 Filed September 23, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. S1100CR201402733 The Honorable Steven J. Fuller, Judge AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED COUNSEL Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. HERNANDEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Jorge Hernandez was convicted of promoting prison contraband and possession of a narcotic drug. The trial court sentenced him to enhanced, concurrent prison terms, the longer of which was 10.5 years. 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 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 asks this court to search the record for error. Hernandez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports them here. Hernandez was incarcerated in a private prison; a corrections officer found a usable quantity of heroin concealed near his bunk in his cell. A.R.S. §§ 13-2501(1), (2), 13-2505(A)(3), 13-3401(20)(jjj), (21)(m), 13-3408(A)(1). And sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Hernandez had at least two historical prior felony convictions. His sentences are within the statutory range and were properly imposed. A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-2505(G), 133408(B)(1). We note, however, that the trial court’s sentencing minute entry incorrectly states Hernandez was sentenced as a nonrepetitive offender. We therefore correct the sentencing minute entry to reflect that he was sentenced pursuant to § 13-703 as a repetitive offender. 2 STATE v. HERNANDEZ Decision of the Court ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). Hernandez’s convictions and sentences, as corrected, are affirmed. 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.
