STATE OF ARIZONA v. MARISELA NAVARRO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MARISELA NAVARRO, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0020 Filed June 23, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR201600497001 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By David J. Euchner, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. NAVARRO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred. B R E A R C L I F F E, Judge: ¶1 Marisela Navarro appeals from the sentences on her convictions for one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices and two counts of theft from a vulnerable adult, after this court vacated the original sentences imposed and remanded for a resentencing on those convictions. State v. Navarro, No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0161 (Ariz. App. Nov. 21, 2018) (mem. decision). Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating he has reviewed the record and has been “unable to find any arguable legal issues to raise on appeal.” Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), counsel has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case, with citations to the record,” and has asked us to search the record for reversible error. Navarro has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 The sentences imposed on remand are consistent with this court’s direction in the previous appeal and are within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(A), (D), 13-703(A), (H), 13-2310(A), 13-1802(G). However, in the course of our review, we noticed that the sentencing minute entry indicates that count two, theft, is designated as a “repetitive offense.” This is contrary to this court’s previous decision and the trial court’s oral pronouncement at resentencing. See Navarro, No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0161, ¶ 50. We therefore correct the sentencing minute entry to reflect that count two is non-repetitive. See State v. Veloz, 236 Ariz. 532, ¶ 21 (App. 2015) (“We may order the minute entry corrected if the record clearly identifies the intended sentence.”). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and have found none. We therefore affirm Navarro’s sentences, as corrected. 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.