STATE OF ARIZONA v. HUGO ALFREDO ESTRADA-SOTO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. HUGO ALFREDO ESTRADA-SOTO, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0471 Filed June 9, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. S1100CR201500772 The Honorable Kevin D. White, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Flores & Clark, PC, Globe By Daisy Flores Counsel for Appellant STATE v. ESTRADA-SOTO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Hugo Estrada-Soto was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale and sentenced to a sevenyear prison term. 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. Estrada-Soto has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports it here. In October 2014, Estrada-Soto sold an informant just over three grams of methamphetamine. A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(6)(xxxviii), 133407(A)(2). His sentence is within the statutory range and was properly imposed. § 13-3407(E). ¶3 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). EstradaSoto’s conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed. 2

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.