STATE OF ARIZONA v. CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0459 Filed August 24, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pinal County No. S1100CR201400333 The Honorable Dwight P. Callahan, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Heard Law Firm, Mesa By James L. Heard Counsel for Appellant STATE v. HERNANDEZ 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 Appellant Christopher Hernandez was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of two misdemeanor offenses, resisting arrest by passive resistance, and disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced Hernandez to 180 days in jail, with credit for time served. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing he has reviewed the entire record and found no “arguable issues for appeal,” and asking that we search the record for fundamental or reversible error. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has also provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record.” Hernandez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in February 2014, Hernandez entered a convenience store, began “hollering” about religious topics and “yelling” at “DOC officers” who were customers in the store “about his brother getting put away,” and refused to leave the store when the assistant manager asked him to do so. The police were summoned and a Superior Police Department officer arrived in his police vehicle followed by two Pinal County Sheriff’s deputies. When the first officer told Hernandez he was under arrest, he “jerked his hand away from [the police officer], pulled off his shirt . . . and began to get louder”; Hernandez “kept holding himself up and was looking back” when one of the deputies ordered him to “get on the ground.” We 2 STATE v. HERNANDEZ Decision of the Court conclude substantial evidence supported Hernandez’s convictions, see A.R.S. §§ 13-2508(A)(3), (B), 13-2904(A)(1), and the jail time imposed is an authorized sentence, see A.R.S. § 13-707(A)(1). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Hernandez’s convictions and the sentences imposed. 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.
