STATE OF ARIZONA v. THOMAS MICHAEL HERNANDEZ

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND M AY 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. MAR 31 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. THOMAS MICHAEL HERNANDEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2008-0083 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-20062491 Honorable Edgar B. Acuña, Judge AFFIRMED R. Lamar Couser Tucson Attorney for Appellant E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge. ¶1 After a six-day jury trial, appellant Thomas Hernandez was convicted of twenty-six offenses, all arising from a series of home invasions that took place in June 2006. The convictions included first-degree burglary, armed robbery, aggravated assault of multiple adults and a minor under the age of fifteen, kidnapping, endangerment, and first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced Hernandez to a combination of consecutive and concurrent, presumptive prison terms on all of the counts except first-degree murder, for which he received a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for twentyfive years.1 Counsel has 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 he has thoroughly reviewed the record and has found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Hernandez has not filed a supplemental brief. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, we ¶2 find there was sufficient evidence to support each of the jury s findings of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). In addition, the sentences are well within the lawful statutory limits. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for ¶3 fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Hernandez s convictions and sentences. _______________________________________ PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: _______________________________________ J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge _______________________________________ GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Judge 1 We note two errors in the sentencing minute entry, neither of which affects the sentences imposed and neither of which is reflected in the oral imposition of sentence. On page twelve of the minute entry ruling, the court ordered Counts Twenty[-]Five through Twenty-Nine . . . to run concurrently. However, because the jury found Hernandez not guilty of count twenty-six, the inclusion of that count is incorrect. In addition, the ruling mistakenly refers twice to count sixteen. 2

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.