STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANTHONY JORDAN FLORES

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED BY CLERK 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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANTHONY JORDAN FLORES, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AUG 27 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO 2 CA-CR 2013-0042 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20120989001 Honorable Michael O. Miller, Judge AFFIRMED West, Elsberry, Longenbaugh & Zickerman, PLLC By Anne Elsberry Tucson Attorneys for Appellant E S P I N O S A, Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Anthony Flores was convicted of second-degree burglary and misdemeanor theft, committed in March 2012. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentences and placed Flores on concurrent, three-year terms of probation. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no arguable, meritorious issues to raise on appeal. She asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. Flores has not filed a supplemental brief. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s ¶2 verdicts. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). In summary, Tucson police officers responded to notification of a burglary in progress and found Flores near the apartment that had been burglarized. After he was advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda,1 Flores identified the vehicle he had been driving, and property taken during the burglary was found in that vehicle. We conclude substantial evidence supported Flores s convictions, see ¶3 A.R.S. §§ 13-1507, 13-1802, and the dispositions were authorized by law, see A.R.S. § 13-902(A). In our examination of the record, we have found no fundamental or reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, Flores s convictions and dispositions are affirmed. /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Presiding Judge /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 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.