STATE OF ARIZONA v. CALEB SOTO DIAZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CALEB SOTO DIAZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0229 Filed April 12, 2017 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20150711001 The Honorable Paul E. Tang, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Kevin M. Burke, Interim Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. DIAZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Caleb Diaz was convicted of kidnapping and three counts of sexual assault. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent and consecutive terms totaling forty-five years’ imprisonment. 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), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no “arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Diaz has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings of guilt. See State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2, 303 P.3d 76, 79 (App. 2013). The evidence presented at trial showed Diaz, whose semen was found on the victim’s shirt and vulva, had grabbed the victim in a “choke hold” while she was out running, threatened to slit her throat; and, although she continued to struggle, he put his finger in her vagina, put his penis in her mouth, masturbated while straddling her, and put his penis in her vagina. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 13708(C), 13-1304, 13-1406. ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Diaz’s convictions and sentences are 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.