STATE v. ROMO

 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. ANNETTE L. ROMO, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 9/17/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0667 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2011-145516-004 The Honorable Cari A. Harrison, Judge The Honorable Jo Lynn Gentry-Lewis, Judge AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Charles R. Krull, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 Annette L. Romo timely appeals from her conviction and sentence for trafficking in stolen property, second degree, a class three felony. Ariz. Rev. Stat. ( A.R.S. ) § 13-2307 (2010). After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Romo s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. This court granted counsel s motion to allow Romo to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Romo did not do so. record, we find no fundamental After reviewing the entire error and, therefore, affirm Romo s conviction and sentence. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 On August 31, 2011, a manager at a Home Depot informed police that telephone to stolen credit purchase chlorine tablets. a card numbers compressor, had been chainsaw, used wrench, by and Later that day, Romo went to the Home Depot with her boyfriend and two individuals, G.M. and J.V. G.M. and J.V. went inside and picked up the items purchased. ¶3 The four left the Home Depot, and G.M. and J.V. asked Romo s boyfriend if he wanted the items or if either he or Romo knew anybody who might be willing to buy the items. Romo telephoned a person she knew who managed a tow yard, and then 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Romo. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 the four drove to the tow yard. The manager of the tow yard bought the compressor, chainsaw, and wrench. Thereafter, the four left the tow yard, and the police subsequently arrested them when they stopped at a convenience store. ¶4 A property, jury convicted second degree Romo and of also trafficking found accomplice as an aggravating circumstance. court found Romo competent for the in stolen presence of an After the superior sentencing, at a priors hearing, the State proved Romo was a category 2 non-dangerous repetitive offender. presumptive term of The superior court sentenced Romo to the imprisonment of 6.5 years with 181 days presentence incarceration credit. DISCUSSION ¶5 We have reviewed error and find none. 881. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at Romo received a fair trial. Although Romo was present on the first day of trial, she was voluntarily absent from the remainder of the trial and, therefore, waived her presence under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.1. She was, however, represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings 2 and was present at all other critical stages. 2 At sentencing, Romo suggested counsel may have been ineffective because he would not talk to her except right before hearings, threatened to withdraw, and lied to the court. A defendant may bring ineffective assistance of counsel claims 3 ¶6 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict. members and the The jury was properly comprised of eight court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charge, Romo s presumption of innocence, the State s burden verdict. of The proof, superior and the court necessity received of and a unanimous considered a presentence report, Romo was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing, and her sentence was within the range of acceptable sentences for her offense. ¶7 Although category 2 the superior non-dangerous court repetitive sentenced offender, the Romo as a sentencing minute entry erroneously referenced A.R.S. § 13-704 (Supp. 2012) -- a statute only applicable to dangerous offenders. We therefore correct the minute entry to delete the reference to A.R.S. § 13-704. CONCLUSION ¶8 We decline to order briefing and affirm Romo s conviction and sentence. ¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations pertaining to Romo s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Romo of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, unless, upon only in a Rule 32 post-conviction procedure, not on direct appeal. State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 525, 527 (2002). 4 review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). ¶10 Romo has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court s own motion, we also grant Romo 30 days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration. /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, 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.