STATE v. LOZOYA
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. ) ) RUDY LOZOYA, JR., ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/07/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CR 11-0845 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-155596-001 The Honorable William L. Brotherton Jr., Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals and Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Christopher V. Johns, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d (defendant) 878 has (1969). advised us Counsel that, for after Rudy Lozoya, searching the Jr. entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting that this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation reversible error. to to review the 289, sustaining 293, record for We review the facts in the light most the conviction reasonable inferences against defendant. Ariz. entire State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). favorable is 778 P.2d 1185, and resolve all State v. Guerra, 161 1189 (1989). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 On October 15, 2010, a fight broke out at the Arizona State Fair. hitting attempted to break up the fight by spraying mace at the participants. A state an A group of men wearing all black were chasing and fair individual. worker One alerted innocent police bystander of identified the men involved in the fight. the altercation and Police began pursuing one of the men, defendant, on foot, and yelled commands that they were police and that he needed to stop. defendant looked back at the officers but During the chase, continued to run. After roughly seventy-five yards, one of the officers was able 2 to catch defendant and place him in a control hold. Defendant struggled to get free of the control hold, and the officer ended up taking defendant to the ground. While on the ground, defendant thrashed his legs and kept his arms stiff and hidden under his body while officers were ordering him to place his hands behind his back. To gain control of the situation, two officers held defendant s legs while a third attempted to secure his arms. After a sixty second struggle between the three officers and defendant, a fourth officer tasered defendant. At this point, police were able to place him under arrest and take him back to their command post. Defendant waived his Miranda rights and told police that one of his friends was fighting and he jumped in to get his back. Defendant also told police that he was running from them because he didn t realize they were police officers and he just wanted to get away from the area. ¶4 At trial, defendant testified that he did not know how the fight started, and that once he noticed one of his friends was involved, he tried to be a good civilian and stop the fight. Defendant stated that while he was attempting to break up the fight he was exposed to the mace that had been sprayed. Defendant further stated that the mace made it difficult for him to see. Defendant claimed that he had not heard any commands from police because the fair rides were playing loud music, and that once he recognized it was police officers that were chasing 3 him he tried to comply but was unable to because the officers threw him to the ground. Defendant stated that he did not try to hide his arms but that he couldn t take them out from under his body because the officers were on top of him. ¶5 Defendant was charged with one count of resisting arrest, a class 6 felony, and one count of disorderly conduct, a class 1 misdemeanor. A jury convicted defendant on the count of resisting arrest and acquitted him on the count of disorderly conduct. The trial court designated the resisting arrest charge as a class 1 misdemeanor and sentenced defendant to a year of supervised probation. As part of the terms and conditions of his probation, defendant was given a sentence of four months in jail without any presentence incarceration credit. ¶6 We have read counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error and find none. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. conducted in Procedure. compliance adequately So far represented with as the by See Leon, 104 All of the proceedings were the Arizona record counsel Rules reveals, at all of Criminal defendant stages of was the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. ¶7 defendant Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform of the status of the appeal and his options. Counsel s duty to further defendant s cause on direct appeal is 4 satisfied and 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). Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶8 We affirm defendant s conviction and sentence. /s/ __________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ SAMUEL A. THUMMA, 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.
