STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANDREW DEAN NORZAGARAY

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 FILED BY CLERK FEB -2 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) ANDREW DEAN NORZAGARAY, ) ) Appellant. ) ) 2 CA-CR 2009-0167 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-20080062 Honorable Richard S. Fields, Judge AFFIRMED Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex Heveri V Ã S Q U E Z, Judge. Tucson ¶1 After a two-day jury trial, appellant Andrew Norzagaray was convicted of theft of means of transportation, a class three felony, third-degree burglary, a class four felony, and criminal damage in an amount more than $250 but less than $2,000, a class six felony.1 The trial court found Norzagaray had two historical prior felony convictions, and sentenced him to concurrent, presumptive sentences, the longest of which is 11.25 years, with credit for 231 days served. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she 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. Norzagaray has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, the evidence was sufficient 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 within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. § 13-604(C).2 1 The dollar amounts under the relevant portion of the criminal damage statute, A.R.S. § 13-1602(B), have been amended since Norzagaray committed the underlying offenses. See 2009 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 8, § 5. 2 The Arizona criminal sentencing code has been renumbered, effective from and after December 31, 2008. See 2008 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 301, §§ 1-120. For ease of reference and because the renumbering included no substantive changes, see id. § 119, we refer to the current section number rather than that in effect at the time of the offense in this case. 2 ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Norzagaray s convictions and sentences. _________________________________ GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Judge CONCURRING: _____________________________________ PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge _____________________________________ JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge 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.