STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOE BERNAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOE BERNAL, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0207 Filed November 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. S1100CR201400048 The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale By Alison Stavris and Christopher Stavris Counsel for Appellant STATE v. BERNAL 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 After a jury trial, Joe Bernal was convicted of promoting prison contraband and sentenced to a 15.75-year prison term. 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 arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. 1 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. Bernal has filed a supplemental brief in which he appears to question the accuracy of some trial evidence. ¶2 Viewing the evidence 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), sufficient evidence supports it here. In October 2013, while Bernal was incarcerated in an Arizona Department of Corrections facility, a corrections officer found a weapon concealed in Bernal’s shoe. See A.R.S. § 13-2505(A)(3), (G). In his pro se supplemental brief, Bernal makes a series of factual assertions, some of which arguably contradict trial evidence. But he identifies no record evidence supporting his statements, as required by Rule 31.13(c)(1)(vi), Ariz. R. Crim. P. And we will not consider on appeal evidence not first presented below. State v. Carter, 216 1Bernal’s first appeal was dismissed as untimely. He was then permitted to file a delayed appeal pursuant to Rule 32.1, Ariz. R. Crim. P. 2 STATE v. BERNAL Decision of the Court Ariz. 286, ¶ 24, 165 P.3d 687, 692 (App. 2007). Finally, the record supported the trial court’s finding that Bernal had two historical felony convictions. His sentence is within the statutory range and was properly imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-2505(G). ¶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). We therefore affirm Bernal’s conviction and sentence. 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.
