STATE OF ARIZONA v. MICHAEL PETER CRUZ
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 JUL -2 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MICHAEL PETER CRUZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2013-0021 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20120769001 Honorable Richard S. Fields, Judge AFFIRMED Harriette P. Levitt V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. Tucson Attorney for Appellant ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Michael Cruz was convicted of attempted armed robbery and attempted aggravated assault, dangerous nature offenses. After finding Cruz had two prior felony convictions, the trial court imposed concurrent, mitigated and minimum terms of imprisonment, the longer of which is nine years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the record and found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. She asks us to search the record for error. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety, and we conclude it supports counsel s recitation of the facts. Cruz has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in February 2012, when the victim, H., a grocery store manager, questioned Cruz about the contents of his backpack, Cruz responded, You re not going to stop me, pulled out a steak knife, and fled from the store. H. feared Cruz would harm him or other customers with the knife. A South Tucson Police officer apprehended Cruz shortly after he had left the store and found [p]ackages of meat from the grocery store inside his backpack. We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of the elements necessary for Cruz s convictions, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1902(A), 13-1904(A), 13- 2 1203(A)(2), 13-1204(A)(2), 13-1001(A), and his sentences are within the authorized range, see A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (J).1 ¶3 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. 386 U.S. at 744. Therefore, we affirm Cruz 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 1 Although A.R.S. § 13-703 has been amended since Cruz committed the underlying offenses, those changes are not material to his case. See 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 96, § 2 and ch. 190, § 2. 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.
