STATE OF ARIZONA v. MODESTO GRADILLAS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MODESTO GRADILLAS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0027 Filed September 8, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20190224001 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Robert A. Kerry, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. GRADILLAS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. E P P I C H, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Modesto Gradillas was convicted of second-degree burglary. The trial court sentenced him to an enhanced, minimum ten-year prison term. Counsel has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he “has reviewed the record” and “[n]o arguable question of law has been found.” Gradillas 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 was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt, see A.R.S. § 13-1507(A). The evidence presented at trial showed that in January 2019, Gradillas used a rock to break a window and entered the victim’s home, taking various items before being captured by law enforcement officers and found with a backpack containing the victim’s belongings. We further conclude the trial court correctly found Gradillas to have four historical prior felony convictions, and the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-1507(B). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Gradillas’s conviction and sentence 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.