State v. Quevedo
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. JUAN CARLOS QUEVEDO, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10-21-2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH No. 1 CA-CR 09-0786 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-108431-001 DT The Honorable Lisa Brown, Judge Pro Tempore CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, 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 Terry J. Reid, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix J O H N S E N, Judge ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d convictions felonies. on 878 (1969), following two counts of Juan disorderly Carlos conduct, Quevedo s Class 6 Quevedo s counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Quevedo was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel now asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Quevedo s convictions and sentences. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Gloria and her two children were on their way home from a party around midnight on the evening of January 31, 2009. 1 While they were stopped at a light, a group of four to five young people began yelling and pointing toward their vehicle. Gloria testified that she saw a young man she later identified as Quevedo lift up his shirt to reveal a gun tucked into his waistband. Because the car windows were closed, the victims could not comprehend what the group was saying. during the commotion the group 1 walked over to At some point the victims Upon review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdicts and resolve all inferences against Quevedo. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). 2 vehicle and began banging on the car windows. While the group banged on the windows, Quevedo again lifted up his shirt and pointed to the gun in his waistband. drove off and called 911. street nearby. In a panic, the victims Police apprehended Quevedo on the The victims were escorted to the location and asked if they could identify the man with a gun. victims positively identified Quevedo, and All three officers took him counts of into custody. ¶3 Quevedo initially was charged with three aggravated assault, Class 3 felonies, but the charges later were reduced to three counts of disorderly conduct, Class 6 felonies. 2 A jury found Quevedo guilty on two of the charges and the court sentenced him to two concurrent enhanced presumptive terms of 1.75 years imprisonment. ¶4 to Quevedo timely appealed. Article Arizona 6, Revised Section 9, Statutes of We have jurisdiction pursuant the ( A.R.S. ) Arizona Constitution, sections and 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010) and -4033(A)(1) (2010). 3 2 Additionally, Quevedo was charged with one count of misconduct involving weapons. This charge was severed and Quevedo was found not guilty of that offense. 3 Absent material revisions after the date offense, we cite a statute s current version. 3 of an alleged DISCUSSION ¶5 was The record reflects Quevedo received a fair trial. represented by counsel at all stages of the He proceedings against him and was present at all critical stages. The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow the jury to convict. eight members with The jury properly was comprised of two alternates. The court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, the State s burden of proof and the necessity of a unanimous verdict. The jury returned unanimous verdicts, which were confirmed by juror polling and supported received and contents during by considered the substantial a evidence. presentence report, sentencing hearing and The court addressed imposed its legal sentences on the crimes of which Quevedo was convicted. CONCLUSION ¶6 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. ¶7 See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel only need inform Quevedo of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, appropriate for upon review, submission petition for review. to counsel the Arizona finds an Supreme issue Court by See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 5844 85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). On the court s own motion, Quevedo has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. Quevedo has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review. /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, 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.
