STATE OF ARIZONA v. MALCOLM FREDDIE RUBIO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MALCOLM FREDDIE RUBIO, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0207 Filed November 19, 2013 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201201230 The Honorable Boyd T. Johnson, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Flores & Clark, LLC, Globe By Daisy Flores Counsel for Appellant STATE v. RUBIO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 Malcolm Rubio was convicted after a jury trial of public sexual indecency to a minor under the age of fifteen and two counts of public sexual indecency. The trial court sentenced him to a maximum, enhanced, three-year prison term for public sexual indecency to a minor and to time served on the remaining counts. 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), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record and asks this court to search the record for error. Rubio has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), there was sufficient evidence to support the jury s findings. Rubio was seen masturbating at a public pool by at least three individuals, one of whom was a minor under the age of fifteen. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1401(2), 13-1403(A)(1), (B). And Rubio s sentences were properly imposed and did not exceed the legal statutory limit. A.R.S. §§ 13-701, 13-703, 13-1403(C). ¶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, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Rubio s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 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.