State v. Francisco

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. JAMIE RAY FRANCISCO, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/14/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0904 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. CR-2009-00427 The Honorable Rick A. Williams, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender Attorney for Appellant Kingman P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 738 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. (1967) (1969). and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 Counsel for Defendant Jamie Ray Francisco has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she 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 was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and has not filed one. FACTS 1 ¶2 Defendant, his girlfriend, A.Y., children lived together in an apartment. help with the crying children at and their two After asking him to approximately 7:30 p.m., Defendant hit A.Y. in the stomach, punched her in the right arm, and stepped on her right arm while she was on the couch. He picked up a glass cup and threatened to hit her with it if she talked back. He then left the apartment and returned hours later smelling like liquor. ¶3 After Defendant returned, A.Y. wanted to be left alone to go to bed. told him that she Defendant told her that she was not going to go to bed because he was going to pick a fight. He picked up a fork and stood over A.Y. while she was on her knees. A.Y. testified that she thought Defendant was going to stab her in the head. got a knife, apartment. and walked After he went back into the kitchen, toward her, A.Y. fled to another Defendant also left the apartment. 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 ¶4 A neighbor called the police. The police responded and arrested Defendant when he returned to his apartment about an hour later. He was charged with aggravated assault by domestic violence, a class 3 felony. ¶5 The case went to trial. In addition to testimony, the jury saw photographs of A.Y. s bruises and scrapes. convicted Defendant as charged. convictions, Defendant was The jury Because he had prior felony subsequently sentenced to twelve years in prison: ten years for the offense, plus two years for being on release status at the time of the assault. He was also given 233 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶6 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 134031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶7 We have read and considered counsel s brief, and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. ¶8 We find no reversible error. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. 3 CONCLUSION ¶9 After obligation to this decision represent has Defendant been in filed, this appeal counsel s has ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal review and reveals Defendant s an issue future options, appropriate for unless submission Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d counsel s to the See State v. 154, 157 (1984). Defendant can, if desired, 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, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge /s/ ____________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, 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.