State v. Herrera
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. ) ) CARLOS SANTOS HERRERA, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 01/25/2011 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH No. 1 CA-CR 10-0326 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-159852-001 DT The Honorable Edward O. Burke, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals and Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Terry J. Adams, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Carlos Santos Herrera appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. Counsel for Herrera filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, searching the arguable 451 record grounds P.2d on for 878 (1969), appeal, he reversal. advising was unable Herrera that to after any granted was find the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation reversible error. is to review the entire record for State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). favorable to We view the facts in the light most sustaining the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Herrera. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. (1989). 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 In September 2009, Herrera was charged with one count of unlawful flight from law enforcement, a class 5 felony in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes section 28-622.01 (2004). 1 The following evidence was presented at trial. ¶4 where Police officers approached a gas station parking lot several loitering. system and young The asked people officers the had used group to 1 gathered their and vehicle disband. public One Absent material revisions after the date offense, we cite the statute s current version. 2 seemed of of to be address Herrera s an alleged acquaintances leapt over the hood of Herrera s car, and got into the passenger seat, and Herrera and the passenger sped away without yielding before pulling into the roadway. The officers followed lot and the vehicle stopped in a parking intersection of 75th Avenue and Indian School Road. at the When the officers reached the rear section of the car, Herrera sped away. The officers did not pursue, but notified other law enforcement personnel in the area to be on the lookout for the automobile. Shortly thereafter, the officers heard a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed in a residential area. While approaching a traffic light at approximately 71st Avenue and Indian School, they witnessed light, and Herrera hit a exit curb, the causing residential area, run damage to red to significant a his Herrera, vehicle. ¶5 The officers continued pursue whose vehicle was slowing down significantly due to the damage. When the vehicle was almost stopped, the officers pulled Herrera out of the vehicle and applied the emergency brake to bring the vehicle to a complete stop. They took Herrera into custody, but the passenger was no longer in the vehicle. ¶6 Herrera testified that he did speed away from the officers at the initial stop, but he did it at the request of his passenger, who had a gun. He stated that the passenger with the gun jumped out of the vehicle during the pursuit. 3 He also testified that he did not stop for the officers because the vehicle had been structurally damaged. ¶7 The jury found Herrera guilty as charged. sentenced him to two years probation and this The court timely appeal followed. ¶8 We have searched error and find none. the entire record for fundamental All of the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record shows Herrera was present and represented by counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings, was afforded the opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Accordingly, we affirm Herrera s conviction and sentence. 4 ¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Herrera of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Herrera shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding 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.
