State v. Rodriguez

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. RAFAEL GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/12/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0857 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-121677-003 DT The Honorable Cari A. Harrison, Judge 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. Adams, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 738 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Rafael Gabriel Rodriguez has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant did not take the opportunity he was given to file a supplemental brief. FACTS 1 ¶2 A good neighbor heard the sound during the morning of March 27, 2009. neighbor s backyard and saw that a of glass breaking She looked into her window screen had been removed and that there was broken glass on the ground. She called 911. ¶3 The police responded and surrounded the home. After ordering the people inside to come out with their hands up, two individuals and the Defendant came out of the house. were arrested. All three The police found a television next to the front door, along with three pillow cases full of household items. ¶4 The homeowners, in the meantime, had been contacted and returned home. They did not know the Defendant, did not recognize him or the others, and had not given anyone permission to enter their home. 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 ¶5 Defendant was indicted on one count of burglary in the second degree, a class 3 felony. The State alleged that he had two prior felony convictions, that the burglary was committed while he was on bond in another pending case, and that there were other aggravating factors warranting an aggravated sentence. ¶6 The case went to trial and the jury found him guilty as charged. trial After a trial on his prior felony convictions, the court found convictions. that Defendant had two prior felony He was subsequently sentenced to 11.25 years in prison and given 231 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶7 to Defendant appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant Article Arizona 6, Section Revised 9, Statutes of the Arizona ( A.R.S. ) Constitution, sections and 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶8 We have considered counsel s brief, and have searched the entire record for reversible error. 300, 451 P.2d at 881. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at We find no reversible error. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was The record, as presented, reveals that represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. 3 CONCLUSION ¶9 After this decision has been obligation to represent Defendant has ended. filed, counsel s Counsel only needs to inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and Defendant s future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. 157 See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d 154, (1984). Defendant, however, can file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶10 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. /s/ ___________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 4

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.