STATE OF ARIZONA v. CARLOS ALEJANDRO FRASQUILLO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK NOV 27 2009 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 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) CARLOS ALEJANDRO FRASQUILLO, ) ) Appellant. ) ) 2 CA-CR 2009-0030 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-20081600 Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani and Joseph L. Parkhurst Harriette P. Levitt Tucson Attorneys for Appellee Tucson Attorney for Appellant H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Carlos Frasquillo was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated driving with an illegal drug in his system while his driver s license was suspended, one count of fleeing from a law enforcement vehicle, one count of criminal damage, four counts of endangerment, and one count of manslaughter. The trial court sentenced him to a combination of concurrent and consecutive, presumptive prison terms totaling twenty-three years. On appeal, Frasquillo argues the court erred in permitting the state to show a videotape at his sentencing hearing that depicted his victims. Finding no error, we affirm. ¶2 Frasquillo contends the trial court erred when it allowed the state to play what he characterizes as an emotionally charged video at sentencing. But Frasquillo has not included the videotape in the record on appeal. It was Frasquillo s duty to see that the record before us contains the material to which [he] take[s] exception. State v. Zuck, 134 Ariz. 509, 512-13, 658 P.2d 162, 165-66 (1982); see also State v. Jessen, 130 Ariz. 1, 8, 633 P.2d 410, 417 (1981) (appellate counsel must ensure any document necessary to appellate argument included in record on appeal); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.8(a)(2). [M]atters [that] are not included in the record on appeal . . . will be presumed to support the action of the trial court. Zuck, 134 Ariz. at 513, 658 P.2d at 166; see also State v. Brown, 188 Ariz. 358, 359, 936 P.2d 181, 182 (App. 1997). We will not speculate on the contents of the videotape presented during the sentencing hearing and therefore affirm Frasquillo s convictions and sentences. JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Presiding Judge GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Judge 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.
