State v. Crespo

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. WILLIE CRESPO, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-CR 09-0603 DIVISION ONE FILED: 03/25/2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-159369-001 SE The Honorable Steven K. Holding, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Christopher V. Johns, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix B A R K E R, Judge ¶1 Willie Crespo ( Crespo ) appeals from his conviction for a single count of aggravated assault as a domestic violence offense. Crespo was sentenced on July 20, 2009, and timely filed a notice of appeal on August 7, 2009. Crespo s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising this court that after searching the entire record on appeal, he finds no arguable ground for reversal. Crespo was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona on or before February 22, 2010, and did not do so. ¶2 of We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2001), and 13-4033(A)(1) (2001). reversible error. We are required to search the record for Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Because we find no such error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural Background ¶3 Crespo and the victim, M.A., roommates at the time of the incident. are friends and were On September 20, 2008, Crespo called M.A. to ask her to pick him up from a bar because he was intoxicated and did not want to ride his bike home. M.A. picked up Crespo in her Chevy Aveo hatchback, and Crespo placed his bike in the hatchback area. 2 On the way home, Crespo used abusive words, but M.A. testified that these did not affect her because she knew [i]t was the alcohol speaking. ¶4 the Once at home, M.A. asked Crespo to get his bike out of vehicle so that she could go to the movies. Crespo responded by throwing the bike in the middle of the lawn. When M.A. attempted to pick up the bike, Crespo grabbed the bike and this time threw it in the middle of the street. M.A., again, attempted to pick up the bike, but Crespo approached her before she could move the bike. ¶5 Ultimately, M.A. fell to the ground and sustained a broken femur. There are two different accounts of what caused M.A. to fall. According to M.A., Crespo stepped between her and the bike with his back facing her chest. Next, Crespo began to swing back and forth until his shoulder or elbow hit her. The hit occurred while M.A. was in the process of stepping away, which she claimed made it easier for her to lose her balance. ¶6 The other account of the fall is from a witness, K.B., who observed the incident from across the street. According to K.B., as M.A. was trying to pick up the bike from the middle of the street, Crespo faced her and took his hands and put them on her and [threw] her on to the ground. ¶7 While M.A. pulled herself to the curb, Crespo went into the house, and K.B. called 911. As the police arrived, Crespo came out of the house and placed a jacket over M.A. 3 ¶8 Officer J.S. testified that at the scene, with Crespo at her side, M.A. stated that nothing happened. hospital, he interviewed her again. At Once at the that interview, according to Officer J.S. s testimony, M.A. stated that Crespo pushed her prosecution. and that she would be willing to aid in the At trial, however, M.A. denied communicating this to Officer J.S. Instead, M.A. testified that she was at the trial on behalf of Crespo. ¶9 At the conclusion of the trial, an eight-person jury convicted Crespo of domestic violence one count offense. of At aggravated sentencing, assault the trial as a court provided Crespo an opportunity to speak and then ordered him placed on two years supervised probation. Disposition ¶10 We meritorious have reviewed grounds for the reversal record of modification of the sentence imposed. and have Crespo s found no conviction or See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. present at all represented by accordance with critical counsel. the stages All of the proceedings proceedings Arizona Rules of Crespo was were and conducted was in Criminal Procedure. decision, counsel s Accordingly, we affirm. ¶11 After the filing of this obligations in this appeal have ended subject to the following. 4 Counsel need do no more than inform Crespo of the status of the appeal and reveals an Crespo s issue future options, appropriate for unless submission Supreme Court by petition for review. counsel s to the review Arizona State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Crespo has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ __________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge 5

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.