STATE v. LAGUNAS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MOISES HERNANDEZ LAGUNAS, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 20-0392 FILED 4-8-2021 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2019-006272-001 The Honorable Timothy J. Ryan, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Linley Wilson Counsel for Appellee KBUNITED, LLC, Phoenix By Kerrie M. Nelson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. LAGUNAS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300 (1969). Counsel for defendant Moises Hernandez Lagunas advised the court that, after searching the entire record, no arguable question of law was identified and asks this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Lagunas was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro se but has not done so. This court has reviewed the record and has found no reversible error. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Accordingly, Lagunas’ convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In February 2020, a jury found Lagunas guilty of one count of attempted second-degree murder, a Class 2 felony (Count 1); one count of kidnapping, a Class 2 felony (Count 4); and three counts of aggravated assault, Class 3 felonies (Counts 2, 3, and 5). The jury also found the State had proven many alleged aggravators. The offenses occurred in March 2013 in Maricopa County. ¶3 The superior court sentenced Lagunas to concurrent prison terms on Counts 1 through 4, and a consecutive prison term on Count 5. Lagunas appropriately received 142 days’ presentence incarceration credit on Counts 1 through 4. This court has jurisdiction over Lagunas’ timely appeal pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 134031, and -4033(A)(1). 2 STATE v. LAGUNAS Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 The record shows that Lagunas was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the convictions. The prison sentences imposed are within statutory limits. The awards of presentence incarceration credit were accurate. And in all other respects, from the record presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. CONCLUSION ¶5 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief, has searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Accordingly, Lagunas’ convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed. ¶6 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to inform Lagunas of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, she identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Lagunas has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 3
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.
