STATE OF ARIZONA v. ISRAEL YSEA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ISRAEL YSEA, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0251 Filed April 24, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Cochise County No. CR201500533 The Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Mark A. Suagee, Cochise County Public Defender By Xochitl Orozco, Deputy Public Defender, Bisbee Counsel for Appellant STATE v. YSEA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Vásquez concurred. H O W A R D, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Appellant Israel Ysea was charged with attempted firstdegree murder, two counts of aggravated assault and unlawful use of a means of transportation. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of unlawful use of a means of transportation and acquitted of the other counts. After finding that Ysea was a category one repetitive offender, the trial court sentenced him to a partly mitigated one-year prison term with 337 days of presentence incarceration credit.1 ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the record and found “no arguable question of law that is not frivolous,” and asking that we search the record for 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.” Ysea has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt. The evidence presented at trial showed that in July 2015, Ysea knowingly drove the victim’s vehicle without his permission and without the intent to permanently deprive him of it, to wit, Ysea drove the vehicle for approximately four or five blocks. See A.R.S. § 131It appears that Ysea is no longer in custody. 2 STATE v. YSEA Decision of the Court 1803(A)(1). We further conclude the sentence was within the statutory limits and was imposed properly. See A.R.S. § 13-703(H). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed 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 for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Ysea’s conviction and sentence. 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.
