STATE OF ARIZONA v. TASHA ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TASHA ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0395 Filed May 22, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20134652001 The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. HERNANDEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Presiding Judge Miller concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Tasha Hernandez was convicted of forgery and theft. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed her on concurrent, three-year terms of probation, ordering her incarcerated for ninety days as a condition of probation. 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 and has found no “arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Hernandez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed Hernandez had been helping a vision-impaired woman move and write a check to pay a bill at the time when a second check for $1,500 was written to Hernandez from the victim’s checking account without her consent or signature, and Hernandez cashed it. We further conclude the terms of probation are within the statutory limit. 1 A.R.S. §§ 13902(A)(3),(4); 13-1802(a)(1); 13-2002(A)(3). 1We note that the trial court indicated in its minute entry that Hernandez had been found guilty of “theft from vulnerable adult,” but the transcript reflects the court properly sentenced Hernandez for a theft conviction. The minute entry is hereby ordered corrected to reflect a conviction for theft pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1802(a)(1). 2 STATE v. HERNANDEZ Decision of the Court ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Hernandez’s convictions and terms of probation are affirmed. 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.