STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE LEYVAS GONZALES
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 MAR 12 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. STEVE LEYVAS GONZALES, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0185 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20113356001 Honorable Paul E. Tang, Judge AFFIRMED Angela C. Poliquin Hamilton, MT Attorney for Appellant V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Steve Gonzales was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, enhanced, presumptive terms of 11.25 years imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). As an arguable issue, counsel suggests the trial court wrongly allowed the jury to be instructed erroneously that reasonable apprehension is an objective standard. Gonzales has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We have examined the record pursuant to our obligation under Anders and have considered counsel s arguable issue, finding no reversible error. We have found in the record substantial evidence supporting each element necessary to support the jury s verdicts. Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the convictions, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence at trial showed Gonzales got out of his vehicle and approached the driver of another vehicle who had made a u-turn. He displayed a knife and threatened the driver, using profane language. The driver, who testified he had felt very scared, drove his vehicle into a nearby parking lot and Gonzales followed, again threatening the driver with a knife and using profane language. We further conclude the sentences imposed are authorized by statute and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13-704(D); 13-1203(A)(2); 131204(A)(2),(D). ¶3 Having searched the record for fundamental error and found none, we affirm Gonzales s convictions and sentences. /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, 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.
