STATE v. BIANCO

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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/25/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RAYMOND ANDREW BIANCO, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-CR 10-1018 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-009026-001 DT The Honorable Janet E. Barton, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate By Thomas J. Dennis, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 sentences Raymond for Bianco murder in appeals the first commit murder in the first degree. from his degree convictions and conspiracy and to Bianco s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question record of law for and requesting reversible that error. this Bianco court was examine afforded the the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We view the in the light therefrom convictions. 668, 669 facts and most all reasonable favorable to inferences sustaining the State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d (App. 2001). With this principle in mind, the following pertinent facts were revealed at trial. ¶3 Victim Armando Paul Alvarez, Jr. was shot and killed in Phoenix on the night of March 22, 2006. hired three teenage boys (Israel (Fu Fu) Allegedly, Bianco Legliu, Sylvester Carpio, and Fabian Cordova) to terminate the victim because the victim owed Bianco money. Bianco and the other Cordova agreed to testify against co-defendants charge of second degree murder. in exchange for a lesser Elvira Gallego, a coworker of the victim, allegedly lured him and drove him to the area where he was killed at the behest of Bianco. Gallego also agreed to testify against Bianco and the other co-defendants in exchange 2 for a plea of facilitation of first degree murder. ¶4 The jury found Bianco guilty of both counts. On count one, first degree murder, Bianco was sentenced to prison for his natural life. murder, On count two, conspiracy to commit first degree Bianco was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole until at least twenty-five calendar years have been served. The sentences are to run concurrently and Bianco received 1081 days of presentence incarceration credit toward count two. ¶5 Bianco pursuant to Arizona timely Arizona Revised appeals Constitution Statutes sections and we Article have 6, jurisdiction Section 12-120.21(A)(1) 9, and (2003), 13- 4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010). 1 DISCUSSION ¶6 Having considered defense counsel s brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. convictions and the permitted by law. The evidence presented supports the sentences imposed fall within the range As far as the record reveals, Bianco was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of 1 We cite to the current versions of statutes when no revisions material to this decision have occurred since the date of the alleged offenses. 3 Criminal Procedure. ¶7 684 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, P.2d 154, 156-57 appeal have ended. (1984), counsel s obligations in this Counsel need do no more than inform Bianco of the disposition of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Bianco has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration petition for review. CONCLUSION ¶8 Bianco s convictions and sentences are affirmed. _______/s/______________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge CONCURRING: ___/s/_____________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge ___/s/_____________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge 4 or

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.