STATE OF ARIZONA v. CHARLES DOMINGUEZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CHARLES A. DOMINGUEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0061 Filed December 20, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pinal County No. S1100CR201502041 The Honorable Steven J. Fuller, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Rosemary Gordon Pánuco, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. DOMINGUEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Eppich concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Charles Dominguez was convicted of thirddegree burglary and sentenced to a 2.5-year 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 (App. 1999), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, she has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record.” Dominguez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict here. In September 2014, Dominguez and another individual entered a commercial building and took several items. See A.R.S. § 13-1506(A)(1). His sentence is within the statutory range and was lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-1506(B). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Dominguez’s conviction and sentence. 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.