STATE OF ARIZONA v. WALLY BORO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. WALLY BORO, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0191 Filed May 7, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20173422001 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. BORO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Wally Boro was convicted of aggravated assault of a minor under fifteen, aggravated assault, two counts of armed robbery, and two counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to enhanced, minimum, consecutive and concurrent terms totaling seventeen 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 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has “been unable to find any arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Boro 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 showed that Boro and an accomplice entered a convenience store, each holding a knife, and demanded money. One of them went behind the counter, threatened to stab the cashier, and took some cigarillos and money from the register, while the other held a knife to the neck of a twelve-yearold customer and took money from him. This evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings of guilt. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1204(A)(2), 13-1903(A), 13-1904(A)(1). We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-704(A), 13-705(D), (H), (M), 13-1204(E), 131903(B), 13-1904(B). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, Boro’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.