STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOSE ANGEL REYES-PALOMINO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSE ANGEL REYES-PALOMINO, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0187 Filed October 26, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20143825002 The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Law Offices of Cornelia Wallis Honchar, P.C., Tucson By Cornelia Wallis Honchar Counsel for Appellant STATE v. REYES-PALOMINO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Staring concurred. H O W A R D, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Jose Reyes-Palomino was convicted of theft by extortion, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, presumptive terms of imprisonment, the longest 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), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no “arguable question of law” to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Reyes-Palomino has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings of guilt. The evidence presented at trial showed that ReyesPalomino and several others, while armed, took a man hostage and held him, demanding money from his father and threatening to harm him if the money was not provided. We further conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limits. A.R.S. §§ 13702(D), 13-704(A), 13-1304(A)(1), (B), 13-1804(A)(1), (C), 131204(A)(2), (D). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Reyes-Palomino’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 2

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.