STATE OF ARIZONA v. HECTOR ANGEL SANDOVAL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. HECTOR ANGEL SANDOVAL, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0096 Filed November 24, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20132846001 The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL West, Elsberry, Longenbaugh & Zickerman, PLLC, Tucson By Anne Elsberry Counsel for Appellant STATE v. SANDOVAL Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Kelly1 concurred. H O W A R D, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Hector Sandoval was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated robbery, and two counts of theft. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which is 15.75 years. ¶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 arguably meritorious 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. Sandoval has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 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), sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdicts. In June 2013, in separate incidents on the same day, Sandoval and three others robbed two victims at gunpoint, taking property from each. A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(2); 13-1204(A)(2); 131802(A); 13-1902(A); 13-1903(A); 13-1904(A). And sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Sandoval had at least two historical prior felony convictions. A.R.S. § 13-105(22). 1The Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. 2 STATE v. SANDOVAL Decision of the Court Sandoval’s prison terms were within the statutory limits and imposed properly. A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J); 13-707(A); 13-1204(D); 13-1802(G); 13-1903(B); 13-1904(B). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental 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 Sandoval’s convictions and sentences. 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.