State v. Chavez
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. ) ) MARTIN CHAVEZ, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/28/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL No. 1 CA-CR 10-0724 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2006-129219-001 DT The Honorable Steven P. Lynch, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona 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 Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Martin Chavez appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of theft of means of transportation. Counsel for Chavez filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after searching the record on appeal, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. was granted the opportunity to file a supplemental Chavez brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation reversible error. is favorable to reasonable inferences 289, the entire record for We view the facts in the light most sustaining 293, review State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). Ariz. to 778 the against P.2d conviction Chavez. 1185, 1189 and State resolve v. (1989). all Guerra, 161 Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 In July 2008, Chavez was indicted on one count of theft of means of transportation, a class 3 felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-1814 (2010). 1 The following evidence was presented at trial. ¶4 In January 2006, the victim permitted his daughter to borrow his 1987 Chevrolet Suburban to attend a nightclub. When she exited the club to return home, the vehicle was missing. She immediately contacted the police department. 1 Absent material revision after the date offense, we cite the statute s current version. 2 of the alleged ¶5 Officer Warren testified that he received a tip about a possible stolen vehicle. and Madden [Chevrolet] Streets in He arrived in the area of Central Avondale Suburban. He and located checked the an license discovered the vehicle had been reported stolen. the neighborhood told driving the vehicle. Officer Warren older that plate model and A resident of Chavez had been Warren testified that Chavez admitted he had driven the vehicle earlier that day, but said that he did not steal it. Officer Warren observed that the steering column was cracked and a screwdriver was required to start the vehicle, the stereo and speakers were missing, and the heater and airconditioning unit were sitting on the floorboard of the vehicle. He also noticed that Chavez had used the trunk area of the vehicle to store some personal items. Officer Warren testified that he did not believe Chavez stole the vehicle, but that he knew it had been stolen. The owner also testified concerning the damage to the vehicle after its recovery. ¶6 Chavez testified that M.P., an acquaintance, had asked him to work on a vehicle for a relative. The following day he realized that the Suburban parked in the vicinity of Central and Madden was the one to which M.P. was referring. He determined that there were extensive repairs to be done, so he drove the Suburban to find M.P. to ask for money to start the repairs. 3 M.P. could not be found, so Chavez drove back and parked the vehicle near the intersection where he had found it. ¶7 The jury found Chavez guilty of the charged offense. The court sentenced Chavez to three years supervised probation. This 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 that Chavez was present and represented by counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings, 2 was afforded the opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Accordingly, we affirm Chavez s conviction and sentence. ¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Chavez 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). Chavez shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so 2 Chavez failed to appear for the second and third days of trial and therefore was not present for the jury s verdict. Upon a finding of guilt, the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Chavez was present at sentencing. 4 desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Presiding Judge /s/ _________________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, 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.
