State v. Anacleto-Stanford

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. ARMANDO ANACLETO-STANFORD, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-CR 10-0922 DEPARTMENT B DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/11/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-134945-004 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas 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 Stephen R. Collins, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix B A R K E R, Judge ¶1 Armando Anacleto-Stanford, Appellant, appeals from his convictions and sentences for one count of kidnapping, a class 2 felony; one count of smuggling, a class 2 felony; and one count of misconduct involving weapons, a class 2 felony. Appellant was sentenced on November 10, 2010, and timely filed a notice of appeal on November 17, 2010. Appellant s counsel 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 this court that after searching the entire record on appeal, he finds no arguable ground for reversal. Appellant was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona on or before July 5, 2011, but did not do so. Appellant did request, however, that his counsel raise the issue of insufficiency of the evidence. ¶2 of We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010). reversible error. We are required to search the record for Finding no such error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural Background 1 ¶3 On May 24, 2009, Appellant was arrested while running from a SWAT raid on a drophouse in Phoenix. The police found him with $700 cash and pieces of paper listing phone numbers and 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). 2 names. Appellant was charged with kidnapping, smuggling, and misconduct involving weapons. ¶4 At trial, a victim who had been held captive in the drophouse, testified that while living in Mexico he met an individual who said that he could bring the victim to the United States for a fee of $2000. After crossing the United States border, he was taken to a house where he was greeted by a person holding a rifle. The victim was surrender his personal belongings. there were four individuals Appellant was one of them. told to kneel down and The victim testified that guarding the house and that The guards held the victim and others in the house while attempting to obtain more money from them. The victim testified that the guards had raised the price of his transfer to the United States from $2000 to $3500. his arrest, Appellant also admitted that he had After crossed the border illegally and that he had held a gun in his hands at one point while he was in the drophouse. ¶5 Appellant argued that the defense of duress applied to his actions. He testified that he had agreed to pay smugglers $1500 to transport him from Mexico to the United States. After the transport, the smugglers refused to release him from the drophouse until he paid them $3000. Because he was unable to obtain the money, he agreed to work for the smugglers as a cook to avoid physical harm. 3 ¶6 The jury found Appellant guilty of they found it to be a non-dangerous offense. found Appellant weapons. guilty of smuggling and kidnapping, but The jury also misconduct involving The trial judge sentenced Appellant to presumptive terms of 5 years for the kidnapping conviction and 2.5 years each for the smuggling and weapons convictions, all to be served concurrently. This appeal followed. Discussion ¶7 Appellant has requested through his counsel that we address whether the convict Appellant. record contained sufficient evidence to Our review of the record reveals that it does. ¶8 The elements of the crime of kidnapping can be satisfied if the defendant knowingly restrains another person with the intent to hold the victim for ransom, as a shield, or hostage. A.R.S. § 13-1304(A)(1). Here, the victim testified that he was restrained in the drophouse for ransom. The victim also testified that Appellant was acting as a guard in the home where he was being held. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Appellant of kidnapping. ¶9 The crime of smuggling can be proven by showing that the defendant transported, or procured the transportation of a person who the defendant knows or has reason to know is not a United States citizen, permanent 4 resident alien, or person otherwise lawfully in Arizona. defendant that may procure facilitate the A.R.S. § 13-2319(A), (F)(3). transportation transportation. by providing A.R.S. A services § 13-2319(F)(2). Here, Appellant admitted to working as a cook for the smugglers. He also knew or should have known that the people being smuggled were not lawfully in the country, as he had claimed that he had been smuggled individuals. into the country illegally by the same Therefore the record contained sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of smuggling. ¶10 Finally, a defendant may be convicted of misconduct involving weapons knowingly possesses prohibited if a the State deadly possessor. proves weapon A.R.S. that and the the defendant defendant § 13-3102(A)(4). is Here, a the parties stipulated that Appellant was a prohibited possessor. Appellant also admitted to holding a gun while he was at the drophouse, thus having direct physical control over a deadly weapon. Therefore, the record also contained sufficient evidence to convict Appellant on this count. Conclusion ¶11 We meritorious have grounds reviewed for the reversal record of and have Appellant s found no convictions. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Appellant was present or his presence was waived at all critical stages of the proceedings, and he was represented by 5 counsel. All proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. ¶12 After the filing of this decision, counsel s obligations in this appeal have ended subject to the following. Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the appeal review and Arizona reveals Appellant s an Supreme issue Court future options, appropriate for by petition for unless counsel s submission review. to State the v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Appellant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ __________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ ____________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 6

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.