STATE v. GONZALES

 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.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 DIVISION ONE FILED: 3/12/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) ANTONIO GONZALES, ) ) Appellant. ) ) ) __________________________________) 1 CA-CR 12-0165 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2011-132936-001 The Honorable Daniel G. Martin, Judge AFFIRMED _________________________________________________________________ Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Division And Joseph T. Maziarz, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Bruce F. Peterson, Maricopa County Legal Advocate Phoenix By Colin F. Stearns, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant __________________________________________________________________ O R O Z C O, Judge ¶1 Antonio Gonzales (Defendant) appeals his sentence for misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony. He alleges that the trial incarceration custody. court credit erred for by all not of awarding the time him that presentence he spent in For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 On June 27, 2011, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Defendant was arrested for possessing a firearm while being a prohibited possessor and was misconduct involving weapons. charged with one count of He was booked on June 28, 2011 and was released later that day. ¶3 Defendant failed to appear at his trial and was tried in absentia. He was convicted and subsequently arrested on a bench warrant on January 27, 2012. court sentenced Defendant to On March 9, 2012, the trial three and one-half years imprisonment and awarded him forty-three days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶4 Defendant timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21.A.1 (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and -4033.A.1 (2010). DISCUSSION ¶5 awarded Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it him forty-three days of presentence incarceration credit, rather than the forty-four days to which he alleges he was entitled. A trial court s failure to award a defendant full 2 credit for error. presentence incarceration constitutes fundamental State v. Ritch, 160 Ariz. 495, 498, 774 P.2d 234, 237 (App. 1989). ¶6 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-712.B (2010), a defendant is entitled to presentence incarceration credit for [a]ll time actually spent in custody pursuant to an offense until prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment for such offense. the For purposes of calculating a defendant s presentence incarceration credit, custody begins when a defendant is booked into a detention facility. 850 P.2d 690, State v. Carnegie, 174 Ariz. 452, 453-54, 691-92 (App. 1993). A court must award a defendant a full day of credit for the day that he was booked into a detention facility, regardless of the time of day the booking occurred. Id. at 454, 850 P.2d at 692. However, presentence incarceration credit does not include the day the defendant s sentence is imposed. State v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244, 245-46, 735 P.2d 854, 855-56 (App. 1987). ¶7 Defendant asserts that he should receive an additional day of presentence incarceration credit for June 27, 2011. He contends that he was both arrested and booked on June 27, 2011, and the trial court committed fundamental error in not awarding him credit for that day. Defendant bases this assertion on the testimony of his arresting officer, Phoenix Police Officer M. (Officer M.), who stated that 3 he arrested Defendant at approximately 11:00 p.m. on June 27, 2011 and that Defendant was booked that same night. Additionally, Officer M. completed a Release Questionnaire for Defendant and dated it June 27, 2011. ¶8 However, when the State asked Officer M. if the booking could have taken place close to midnight, Officer M. answered yes. The State also introduced a certified copy of Defendant s booking photo that included a booking date of June 28, 2011. ¶9 Based on our review of the record, we find that Defendant was booked into a detention facility on June 28, 2011; therefore, he is not entitled to an additional presentence incarceration credit for June 27, 2011. day of Defendant was awarded one day of credit for June 28, 2011, the day he was initially booked and released from the detention facility. Additionally, the trial court awarded Defendant forty-two days of presentence incarceration credit for the period from January 27, 2012, through properly the his day sentencing awarded incarceration he was on Defendant credit. re-arrested March 9, 2012. forty-three Accordingly, error. 4 after we his The conviction, trial court days of presentence find no fundamental CONCLUSION ¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. /S/ ____________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ___________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge /S/ ___________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge Pro Tempore* *The Honorable Daniel A. Barker (Retired), Judge Pro Tempore of the Court of Appeals, Division One, is authorized by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court to participate in the disposition of this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-145 to -147 (2003). 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.