STATE OF ARIZONA v. ESEQUIEL PAUL FLORES

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ESEQUIEL PAUL FLORES, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0203 Filed December 30, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Gila County No. CR201300370 The Honorable Timothy M. Wright, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. FLORES Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Espinosa concurred. S T A R I N G, Judge: ¶1 Esequiel Flores was convicted after a jury trial of disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, a knife, and the jury found it to be a domestic violence offense. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Flores on a three-year term of probation. ¶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. Flores did not file a supplemental brief, and the deadline for doing so has passed. ¶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. During an argument with his wife in April 2012, Flores brandished a knife, asked his wife to kill him, and cut himself in front of her and her daughter when she refused. See A.R.S. §§ 132904(A)(6); 13-3601(A). The terms of his probation are authorized by statute and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13901(A), (B); 13-902(A)(4); 13-2904(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 2 STATE v. FLORES Decision of the Court requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Flores’s conviction and disposition. 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.