State v. Llamas-Cervantes

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. ) ) ) JOSE ALFREDO LLAMAS-CERVANTES, ) ) Appellant. ) ) 1 CA-CR 10-0444 DEPARTMENT E DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/21/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-160304-001DT The Honorable John R. Hannah, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Theresa M. Armendarez, P.L.C. by Theresa M. Armendarez Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Manteo, NC 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 Jose Llamas-Cervantes 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 s convictions stem from his reaction to several confrontations between his seventeen-year-old son, Noel, and gang members of the Cashion Park Locos ( CPL ). He shot four people but only Junior Grado died. ¶3 Initially, Noel tried to run over Junior with his car. Subsequently, Junior, and others went to Defendant s house on September 22, 2008, to confront Noel, but he was not home. ¶4 Junior and his friends returned to Defendant s house the next day. him. Noel went outside, and Junior wanted to fight Defendant intervened by telling Junior to leave or else [he] was going to fuck him up. Defendant then grabbed his shotgun and fired a shot into the ground to scare them off. ¶5 The next day, Junior and a large group of his friends again went to Defendant s home. and they began to fight. shotgun. Junior again confronted Noel, Defendant went inside and grabbed his When he came outside, he saw that his son had been 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 knocked down and was not moving. the back and killed him. Defendant then shot Junior in He then fired into the crowd and struck three other people. ¶6 Defendant class one was dangerous indicted felony; and for second-degree three counts assault, class three dangerous felonies. murder, of a aggravated The jury acquitted Defendant on the murder charge, but found him guilty on all aggravated assault charges. He was subsequently sentenced to 7.5 years in prison on one count of aggravated assault, and five years on each of the other two counts of aggravated assault, all to run concurrently. He also received 603 days of credit for presentence incarceration. ¶7 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶8 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 We find none. 881. 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 3 at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶9 After this to represent obligation decision 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 convictions sentences. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge /s/ ____________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge 4 and

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.