STATE OF ARIZONA v. JACOB BRANDON FIMBRES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JACOB BRANDON FIMBRES, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0083 Filed February 6, 2015 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20132360001 The Honorable Paul E. Tang, Judge The Honorable Kenneth Lee, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. FIMBRES Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Miller and Judge Espinosa concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Jacob Fimbres was convicted of second-degree trafficking in stolen property. The trial court sentenced him to an enhanced, partially mitigated, four-year prison term. ¶2 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. Fimbres has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict. In April 2013, Fimbres possessed and offered for sale property that had recently been stolen in a burglary; he claimed he had been offered the property by an acquaintance and had purchased it in a parking lot, acknowledging to police that he paid a very low price for it. A.R.S. §§ 13-2301(B)(3), 13-2307(A);1 see also A.R.S. § 13-2305 (permitting inference that person in possession of stolen property “aware of the risk that it had been stolen” when 1 Unless otherwise noted, we cite the current versions of statutes in this decision, as their material provisions have not changed since Fimbres’s offense. 2 STATE v. FIMBRES Decision of the Court property was recently stolen or obtained at price “substantially below its fair market value”). Fimbres’s prison term is within the statutory limit and was imposed properly. A.R.S. §§ 13105(22)(c), 13-604(A), 13-2307(C); 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 190, § 2 (former A.R.S. § 13-703(B), (I)). ¶4 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). Accordingly, we affirm Fimbres’s conviction and sentence. 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.
