STATE OF ARIZONA v. FRANCISCO JAVIER ROSALES JR.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. FRANCISCO JAVIER ROSALES JR., Appellant. Nos. 2 CA-CR 2015-0155 and CR 2015-0178 (Consolidated) Filed April 22, 2016 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20132073001 The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Steven R. Sonenberg, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. ROSALES Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Staring concurred. H O W A R D, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Francisco Rosales Jr. was convicted of two counts of assault, both domestic violence offenses. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Rosales on concurrent, three-year terms 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. Rosales has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports them here. In May 2013, Rosales punched and kicked his former girlfriend, beat her with a metal baton, and choked her until she became unconscious. 1 A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(1); 13-3601(A). The terms of his probation are authorized by statute and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901(A), (B); 13-902(A)(5); 131203(B). 1 The state alleged Rosales had committed two counts of aggravated assault. The jury acquitted Rosales of aggravated assault, instead finding him guilty of the lesser-included offense of assault. 2 STATE v. ROSALES Decision of the Court ¶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 Rosales’s convictions 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.
