STATE OF ARIZONA v. MARCUS CHRISTOPHER DE LA TORRE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MARCUS CHRISTOPHER DE LA TORRE, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0206 Filed August 23, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20164990001 The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Erin E. Duffy, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. DE LA TORRE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Eppich concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Chief Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Marcus De La Torre was convicted of attempted first-degree murder of a peace officer and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a peace officer, all dangerous offenses. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling 25.5 years. ¶2 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 but found no “arguably meritorious issues to raise on appeal,” and asks this court to review the record for error. De La Torre has filed a supplemental brief, in which he argues the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and that the prosecutor improperly “opened the door regarding [his] prior felony convictions.” De La Torre also asserts his trial counsel was ineffective, but those claims cannot be raised on appeal and must instead be raised in a petition for postconviction relief. See State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, ¶ 9 (2002). ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1001(A)(3), 13-1105(A)(1), 13-1204(A)(2), (C). In October 2017, while fleeing a traffic stop on foot, De La Torre repeatedly fired a handgun at one of the pursuing police officers, striking him in the head, and then pointed the weapon at both officers before he was shot and arrested. The sentences imposed are within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-704(A), 13-1001(C)(1), 13-1105(D), 13-1204(E). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for error and found none. And, we have reviewed the issues identified by De La Torre’s supplemental brief and have determined they 2 STATE v. DE LA TORRE Decision of the Court are not arguable issues requiring further briefing.1 See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012). ¶5 We affirm De La Torre’s convictions and sentences. 1Contrary to De La Torre’s assertion in his supplemental brief, the jury was instructed on self-defense. 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.
