STATE OF ARIZONA v. JAMES PATRICK CHAVEZ

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 14 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAMES PATRICK CHAVEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0334 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GILA COUNTY Cause No. CR201100488 Honorable Robert Duber II, Judge AFFIRMED Emily Danies E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge. Tucson Attorney for Appellant ¶1 Appellant James Chavez was convicted after a jury trial of kidnapping, theft of a means of transportation, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, and aggravated assault. After Chavez admitted having four historical previous felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him to a combination of partially aggravated and maximum concurrent prison terms, the longest of which were seventeen years. 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 reviewed the record but found [n]o arguable question of law and asking us to review the record for fundamental error. Chavez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury s verdicts. See State v. Haight-Gyuro, 218 Ariz. 356, ¶ 2, 186 P.3d 33, 34 (App. 2008). Chavez and two coconspirators arranged to meet the victim, took the victim s truck, and held him captive at knifepoint; during the course of the incident, Chavez restrained the victim and choked him, and later struck the victim while he was on his hands and knees, injuring him. This evidence is sufficient to support the jury s verdicts. See A.R.S. §§ 131003(A), 13-1203(A)(1), 13-1204(A)(4), 13-1304(A)(3), 13-1814(A)(1). And Chavez s sentences were within the prescribed statutory range and imposed lawfully. See A.R.S. §§ 13-701(D), 13-703(C), (D), (J), 13-1003(D), 13-1204(D), 13-1304(B), 13-1814(D). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 2 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, Chavez s convictions and sentences are affirmed. /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge* *A retired judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals authorized and assigned to sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals, Division Two, pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Order filed December 12, 2012. 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.