STATE OF ARIZONA v. EDWARD MICHAEL GOMEZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDWARD MICHAEL GOMEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0176 Filed January 16, 2020 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20162803001 The Honorable Michael Butler, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Sarah L. Mayhew, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. GOMEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Edward Gomez was convicted of aggravated assault of a police officer and sentenced to a 2.25-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 but found no “meritorious issue to raise on appeal” and asking this court to review the record for error. Gomez has filed a supplemental brief raising numerous claims, including that the trial court denied his right to a complete defense by improperly “curtailing testimony,” that his arrest was unlawful and involved excessive force, and that arresting officers “did not act in good faith” in failing to record his arrest with body cameras or a “back seat” camera. ¶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 here, see A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(8)(a). In June 2016, Gomez kicked a police officer in the face while officers attempted to restrain him after he began kicking the windows of a police vehicle in which he was seated following his arrest. ¶3 Sufficient evidence also supports the trial court’s finding that Gomez had one historical prior felony conviction. His sentence is within the statutory range. A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 13-1204(F). We have reviewed the issues Gomez identifies in his supplemental brief and have determined they are not arguable issues requiring further briefing. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error, including the purported errors Gomez identified in his supplemental brief, and found none. Accordingly, we affirm Gomez’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.