STATE OF ARIZONA v. MAXIMINO GABRIEL MATASCRANZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MAXIMINO GABRIEL MATASCRANZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0108 Filed March 25, 2019 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20171944001 The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. MATASCRANZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Maximino Matascranz was convicted of unlawful imprisonment of a thirteen-year old.1 The trial court sentenced him to a 1.75-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), 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. Matascranz has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt, see A.R.S. § 131303(A). The evidence showed that Matascranz, who was on probation for another conviction at the time of the offense, locked the thirteen-year-old victim in a bathroom. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 13-1303(C). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Matascranz’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 1Matascranz subsequently pled guilty to another count after the jury was unable to reach a verdict on various other charges against him. 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.